Cce, Delhi-Iii vs M/S M.M. Auto Industries Ltd

1 Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 26 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?

2 Whether it should be released under Rule 26 of 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?

Excise Appeal No. 60587 of 2013

(Arising out of order in appeal No. 347/SVS/GGN/2013 dated 23.07.2013 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Delhi-III.)

CCE, Delhi-III Appellant

Vs.

M/s M.M. Auto Industries Ltd. Respondent

Appearance:

Shri R. K. Mishra, DR for the appellant

Sh. Mukesh Kumar Goyal for the Respondent

Coram: Honble Mr. Justice G. Raghuram, President

Final Order No. 51591/2015

Per: Justice G. Raghuram:

This is another misconceived appeal by Revenue and is preferred against the order dated 23.07.2013 of the ld. Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Delhi-III, whereby the respondent assessees appeal was allowed.

2. The assessee is a manufacturer of springs, circlips components of automobiles etc .and of resultant scrap arising from the process of manufacture. The assessee availed cenvat credit facility under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 in respect of construction services; annual maintenance contract services provided for maintenance of IT network; tour & travel services; and housekeeping services. Alleging irregular availment of credit on what is alleged to have been not input services for its output of manufacture of excisable goods and proposing denial of the credit availed and imposition of interest and penalties therefor, proceedings were initiated by issuing a show cause notice dated 04.10.2012, which culminated in the primary adjudication order dated 21.09.2012 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Central Excise, Delhi-II. The primary Authority concluded that while availment of cenvat credit on AMC services was valid, construction service, tour and travels service or housekeeping service qualify for availement of credit. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal which was allowed by the order impugned. The appellate authority concluded that since input services defined in Rule 2(1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 including the services relating to modernization of repairs of the factory premises of provider of output service or office relating to such factory or premises etc. and as utilisation of construction services for the purpose of construction of the factory is not in dispute, availment of cenvat credit on construction services is valid. The appellate authority also allowed the appeal in so far as availament of cenvat credit was for tour and travel and housekeeping by following the decisions of this Tribunal in CCE, Nasik vs. Cable Corporation of India Ltd.  2008 (12) STR 58; CCE, Jaipur II vs. J.K. Cement Works  2009 (14) STR 538; CCE, Vadodara vs. Haldyn Glass Gujarat Ltd.  2009 (24) ELT 729; Balkrishna Industries Ltd. vs. CCE, Aurangabad  2010 (254) ELT 301 and CCE, Chennai vs. Rotork Control (India) Ltd.  2010 (20) STR 29.

3. Revenue has preferred this appeal contending that neither construction service, tour and travel or housekeeping services were used directly or indirectly for manufacture of final products and provision of these services has no nexus with manufacture and clearance of the assessee final products. This contention in the grounds of appeal does not comport with the definition of input services in the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 nor with the decisions relied on by the ld. appellate authority for allowing the assessee appeal.

4. Revenue appeal is fundamentally misconceived for the aforesaid reasons, invites rejection and is accordingly dismissed. No costs.

(Justice G. Raghuram)

President

Pant