Cce, Noida vs Honda Seil Cars India Ltd

[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.235/CE/Appl/Noida/2009 dated 28.08.2009 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Noida]

For approval and signature:

HONBLE 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?

CCE, NOIDA Appellant

Vs.

Honda Seil Cars India Ltd.  Respondent

Present for the Appellant : Shri R.K. Gupta, D.R. Present for the Respondent: Ms. Nupur Maheshwari, Advocate

Coram: HONBLE MR. S.K. MOHANTY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

Date of Hearing/Decision: 25.08.2015

FINAL ORDER NO. ___54272/2015___

PER: S.K. MOHANTY

Revenue has filed this appeal against the impugned order dated 28.8.2009 passed by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals), Customs and Central Excise, Noida, wherein cenvat credit of service tax paid on the medi-claim Insurance policy and catering service by the respondent herein has been allowed on the ground that those services are confirming to the definition of input service, in terms of Rule 2 (l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and also the expenditure incurred towards the services has been considered as the element of cost in the CAS-4 prepared by them.

2. The Revenue has filed the appeal interalia, on the ground that the disputed services are not confirming to the definition of input service for the purpose of availment of Cenvat credit.

3. I have heard the ld. Counsel for both sides and perused the records.

4. I find that the ld. Commissioners (Appeal) vide the impugned order has allowed the cenvat benefit on the disputed services, relying on various judgments/ decisions of the judicial forum. Further, I find that the definition of input service contained in Rule 2 (l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 is wide enough to include within its ambit the activity relating to business. Since the expenditure incurred for availing the services have been taken by the appellant in the CAS-4, it can safely be concluded that incurrence of such expenses are in relation to the business of the appellant, and as such, covered under the definition of input service. I find that the issue with regard to eligibility to cenvat credit of the disputed services is no more res-integra in view of the settled position of law laid down in the following cases:-

1. CCE, Bangalore vs. Stanzen Tyotetsu India (P) Ltd. -2011 (23) STR 444 (Kar.)

2. CCE vs. HCL Technologies reported in - 2015 (37) STR 716 (All.)

3. CCE, Nagpur vs. Ultratech Cement - 2010 (260) ELT 369 (Bom.)

4. CCE vs. FerromatiK Milacorn India Ltd. - 2011 (21) STR 8 (Guj.)

5. CCE, Bangalore vs. Millipore India Pvt. Ltd. - 2012 (26) STR 514 (Kar.)

5. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the disputed services merits consideration as input service for the purpose of taking cenvat credit. Thus, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned and, as such, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.

(Dictated and pronounced in the open Court)

(S.K. MOHANTY) MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

Anita 0 2 E/3040/2009 EX. [SM]