C.C.E. Delhi-Ii vs M/S. Indraprasthan Gas Ltd
- CitationExcise Appeal No. E/756/2010-[SM]
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Cenvat credit on service tax paid on banking and financial services is admissible to a manufacturer where those services relate to the business of manufacturing the final product, such that they fall within the definition of "input service" in Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004; the phrase "activities relating to business" in that definition is broad enough to take in expenses incurred by a manufacturer for accomplishing the purpose of its business, and the absence of a direct nexus objection to the service's connection with manufacture does not defeat the credit where the service is so related.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No. 06/CE/DLH.2010 dated: 03.02.2009 passed by CCE (Appeals) Delhi-II]
For approval and signature:
Hon'ble Mr. S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial)
1 Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2 Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
3 Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?
4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
C.C.E. Delhi-II ...Appellant
Vs.
M/s. Indraprasthan Gas Ltd. Respondent
Appearance:
Mr. RK Mishra, DR for the Appellant
Mr. A K Batra, (Advocate) for the Respondent
CORAM:
Hon'ble Mr. S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial)
Date of Hearing/ Decision. 04.08.2015
Final Order No. 54249 /2015_
Per S K Mohanty:
The Revenue is in appeal against the impugned order dated 08.01.2010 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi, wherein cenvat credit of service tax amounting to Rs. 18,58,509/- paid on the banking and financial services was allowed in favour of the respondent herein. The Revenue has challenged the impugned order on the ground that there is no nexus between the input service and the manufacturing activities undertaken by the respondent.
2. Heard the Ld. Counsel for both the sides and perused the records.
3. I find that the Commissioner (Appeals) has recorded the detailed reason as to why the respondent herein shall be eligible to the cenvat credit on the disputed services. While allowing the cenvat credit in favour of the respondent, the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) vide paragraph 4(a) in the impugned order has recorded that the phrase activities relating to business is very broad and takes within its ambit the expenses incurred by the manufacturer for accomplishing the purpose of business. While allowing the Cenvat credit in favour of the Respondent, the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has also relied on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Milipore (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs CCE reported in 2009 (236) ELT 0145 (Tri. Bang).
4. I find that the service tax paid by the Respondent on banking and financial services are relating to the business of manufacturing of the final product i.e. CNG Gas, and as such, in terms of the definition of Input Service contained in Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, the credit on the disputed service cannot be denied to the Respondent.
5. In view of above, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order, and thus, the appeal filed by the Revenue-Appellant is dismissed.
(Dictated and pronounced in open court)
(S. K. Mohanty) Member(Judicial)
Neha
Page | 2
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free