C.C.E. Delhi-Iii vs M/S. Ntf India (P) Ltd

[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No. 323-SVS-GGN-2013 dated: 17.07.2013 passed by CCE Delhi-III (Gurgaon)]

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-III ...Appellant

Vs.

M/s. Ntf India (P) Ltd. Respondent

Appearance:

Mr. R K Mishra, DR for the Appellant

Mr. Rakshit Verma, (Advocate) for the Respondent

CORAM:

Hon'ble Mr. S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial)

Date of Hearing/ Decision. 31.07.2015

Final Order No. 54098/2015

Per S K Mohanty:

The Revenue is in appeal against the impugned order dated 17.07.2013 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Gurgaon.

2. The Revenue has filed this appeal against the impugned order on the ground that there is no nexus between the disputed services and the final product manufactured by the Respondent.

3. The Ld. Advocate submits that the security service is specifically covered in the definition of input service contained in Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules. With regard to the service tax paid on labours contract service, the submissions of the Ld. Advocate are that the labours were deployed for the manufacturing activity in the factory premises, and as such, the said service for arranging work force has a nexus with the ultimate manufacture of the final product. He further submits that during the period March 2006 to March 2010, the Administrative Commissioner vide his order dated 7.1.2013 has allowed the cenvat benefit on the disputed services to the appellant, against which no appeal has been preferred by the Department in the appellate forum.

4. The Ld. DR appearing for the Revenue reiterates the findings recorded in the grounds of appeal and submits that the disputed services are not eligible for cenvat benefit as per the decisions of this Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise Chennai vs Sundaram Brake Linings reported in 2010 (19) STR 172 (Tri. Chennai).

5. Heard the Ld. Counsel for both sides.

6. I find that in the impugned order, the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has allowed the cenvat benefit on the disputed services, holding that security service are pertaining to business and are well covered with the definition of input service. With regard to the manpower recruitment supply service, he observed that the disputed services are directly related to the manufacture of final product.

7. I also find that the Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-III (Gurgaon) vide adjudication order dated 7.1.2013 has also allowed the cenvat credit on the disputed service by holding that the said services have the nexus with the manufacture of final product by the appellant.

8. In view of above, I am of the considered opinion that there is no infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), and thus, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.

(Dictated and pronounced in open court)

(S. K. Mohanty) Member(Judicial)

Neha

3 | Page

E/50013/2014