C.C.E. Delhi-Iii vs M/S. Delphi Automotive Systems (P) Ltd
- CitationAppeal No. E/60373/2013-EX(SM)
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
A manufacturer of excisable goods who avails of services in the course of its business of manufacture is entitled to Cenvat credit on those services under Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, following the Bombay High Court's view in Ultratech Cement Ltd. that any service availed by such a manufacturer in the course of business qualifies as an input service. Where a binding or persuasive High Court decision on the point was available before the Revenue filed its appeal, and the Revenue relied only on earlier case law predating that decision, the Revenue's appeal fails on the merits and is dismissed.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 362/SVS/GGN/2013 dated 26.07.2013 by the Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax (Appeals), Gurgaon].
For approval and signature:
Honble Shri Ashok Jindal, 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-III .Appellants
Vs.
M/s. Delphi Automotive Systems (P) Ltd. .Respondent
.
Appearance:
Shri D. Singh, DR for the Appellant
Ms. Madhulika Bose, Advocate for the Respondent
CORAM:
Hon'ble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)
Date of Hearing: 26.06.2015
FINAL ORDER NO. 52043/2015-EX(SM)
Per Ashok Jindal:
The short issue involved in the matter is that whether respondent is entitled to avail Cenvat Credit on the following services as per Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 or not:
* Tour & Travels,
* Lease Rent,
* House Keeping,
* Rent a cab,
* A.C. Service Charges,
* Courier Services,
* Certification fees,
* IT Support charges
2. In fact, in 2010 the Honble High Court of Bombay in the case of CCE Nagpur Vs. Ultratech Cement Ltd.-2010 (260) ELT 369 (Bom) has held that any services availed by manufacturer of excisable goods during the course of their business is entitled to take Cenvat Credit as per Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004. As this decision was available before filing this appeal by the Revenue and they have relied to file this appeal only on the case laws which are prior to the decision of Honble High Court of Bombay in the case of Ultratech Cement Ltd. (Supra), therefore, Revenues appeal deserves no merits as respondent is a manufacturer of excisable goods and availed these services in the course of their business of manufacturing of excisable goods.
3. In these terms I do not find any infirmity with the impugned order. Same is upheld. Appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.
(Dictated and pronounced in the open court)
(Ashok Jindal) Member (Judicial)
Bhanu
2
E/60373/2013-EX(SM)
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