Commissioner Of Central Excise vs M/S. High Tech Gears Ltd

[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No. DLI-EXCUS-003-APP-486-13-14 dated 30/08/2013 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs(Appeals), Gurgaon, Delhi III]

For approval and signature:

Honble Mr 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?

Commissioner of Central Excise Appellants

Delhi

Vs.

M/s. High Tech Gears Ltd. Respondent

Appearance:

Shri G R Singh, AR for the Appellants

Shri R C Choudhary, Advocate for the Respondent

CORAM:

Hon'ble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)

Date of Hearing /decision: 29.06.2015

ORDER NO. FO/ 52083 /2015-Ex(SM)

Per Ashok Jindal :

Revenue is in appeal against the impugned order allowing Cenvat credit to the respondent for management consultancy service and insurance auxiliary service holding that these services have been availed by the respondent in the course of their business of manufacturing excisable goods.

2. The contention of the learned AR is that respondent has not supplied the documents to the authorities below for their consideration and also on the ground that service in question do not qualify as input service as per Rule 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.

3. Heard the learned AR. Perused the records.

4. On perusal of the record, I find that the show cause notice has been issued to the respondent only on the premise that these services do not qualify as input service as per Rule 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The issue has been settled by the Honble High Court of Bombay in the case of CCE vs. Ultratech Cement [2010 (20) STR 577(Bom)], wherein the Honble High Court has held that any services availed by the manufacturer of excisable goods in the course of their business is entitled for cenvat credit. Admittedly, this service has been availed by the respondent in the course of their business of manufacturing. Therefore, respondent is entitled to take cenvat credit on these services. In these terms, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. Same is upheld. Appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed.

(Dictated and pronounced in the open court )

( Ashok Jindal ) Member(Judicial)

ss

2