C.C.E. Delhi-Iii vs M/S. Tenneco Automotive India Pvt. Ltd
- CitationAppeal No. E/50695/2014-EX(SM)
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Tribunal's reasons rest on two propositions. First, input services and capital goods received by an assessee and used in the business of manufacturing excisable goods qualify for Cenvat credit; the respondent is entitled to credit on the disputed architectural, consultancy, energy audit and housekeeping services because they were received in that business. Second, where the capital goods and inputs were not used by any other unit of the assessee and no other unit has availed Cenvat credit on the same invoices, the fact that the invoices bear an address other than the present address of the unit receiving the goods does not bar the assessee from availing the credit.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 563/SVS/GGN//2013 dated 23.10.2013 by the Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax (Appeals), Delhi].
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. Tenneco Automotive India Pvt. Ltd. .Respondent
Appearance:
Shri V.P. Batra, DR for the Appellants
Shri H. Bajaj, Advocate for the Respondent
CORAM:
Hon'ble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)
Date of Hearing: 05.03.2015
FINAL ORDER NO. 50579/2015-EX(SM)
Per Ashok Jindal:
The revenue is in appeal against the impugned order.
2. The facts of the case are that a show cause notice was issued to the respondent on 01.06.2011 to deny the Cenvat Credit availed by them on architectural services which were received by the respondent for construction of civil work in their plant, architectural consultancy for civil work of the factory premises and capital goods, energy audit and housekeeping. The show cause notice also sought the denial of Cenvat Credit on capital goods and inputs on the premise that the invoices issued to the respondent is having some address other than the address of the other unit of the respondent at present.
3. Heard the parties. Considered the submissions.
4. In the impugned order the Ld. Commissioner held that as the services in dispute have been received by the respondent in the business of manufacturing of excisable goods. Therefore, they are entitled to avail Cenvat Credit on these services. Furthermore, it s not disputed that these capital goods and inputs have not been used by the respondent themselves and the other unit have not taken up Cenvat Credit on the strength of these invoices. Therefore, respondent are entitled to take Cenvat Credit.
5. As the facts of the case are not in dispute, therefore, 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/50695/2014-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