Cce, Delhi-Iii vs M/S.Mindarika Pvt.Ltd
- CitationAppeal No.E/60762/2013-EX(SM)
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The question of whether a service is an "input service" for the purposes of Cenvat credit turns on whether it is used in or in relation to the business of the assessee, and the Tribunal accepts that it need not be shown to be linked to manufacture in a narrow sense. Where the assessee avails a service in the course of its business, such as courier dispatch of payment cheques and business documents, air travel to procure inputs or sell finished products, outward freight delivering goods to the buyer, or language training required to operate technology received under a foreign joint venture, the service is an input service and credit is admissible; the Tribunal upholds the Commissioner (Appeals)'s allowance of credit on that basis.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
[Arising out of the Order-in-Appeal No.DLI-EXCUS-003-APA-437-13-14 dated 13.8.2013 passed by the CCE (Appeals), Delhi)
Date of Hearing/Decision: 11.2.2015
For Approval &signature:
HonbleMr.Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)
1. Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? No 2. Whether it would be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? No 3. Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the order? seen 4. Whether order is to be circulated to the Department Authorities? Yes
CCE, Delhi-III Appellant
Vs.
M/s.Mindarika Pvt.Ltd. Respondent
Appearance
Shri A.K.Dhawan, AR for the appellant
Shri Kulbhushan Sharma, Reprenstative for the respondent
CORAM: HonbleMr.Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)
FINAL ORDER NO.50454/2015
Per Ashok Jindal :
The input service credit has been allowed by the Commissioner (Appeals) on courier service, air ticketing service/air travel agent service, technical training & coaching service and outward freight service.
2. The Revenue is of the view that these services have no nexus with the manufacturing of respondent. Therefore, the Revenue is in appeal against the impugned order.
3. Learned AR for the Revenue submits that these services have no nexus with the manufacturing of the respondent. Therefore, the respondent is entitled to input service credit.
4. Heard the parties and considered the submissions.
5. I have gone through the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) wherein the Commissioner (Appeals) held that courier service availed by the respondent for despatch of cheques towards payment to venders to suppliers and invoice and purchase order and other relevant documents which are integral part of the business. For air ticketing service, it is observed by the Commissioner (Appeals) that the respondent or the employees of the respondent are selling or exporting the goods manufactured by them in India as well as outside India. In fact, these services have been received to visit them in relation to procurement of inputs/ sale of their final products. For technical training and coaching service, it is observed that the respondent is manufacturing automotive switches having joint venture with Japanese company. As all the technical know-how and documents in Japanese language, they are using Japanese language instructor for teaching Japanese language to their technician and availing the credit for this service. For outward freight service, this service has been availed by the respondent for transportation of the goods upto the place of the buyer and as purchase order, they are required to be delivered the goods at their door. And the respondent has paid service tad on outdoor catering service.
6. On going through the observations made by the Commissioner (Appeals), I find that the Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly held that these services being availed by the respondent in the course of business of their business. Therefore, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and the same is upheld.
7. The appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.
(dictated&pronounced in the open court)
(Ashok Jindal)
Member (Judicial)
mk
1
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