Commissioner Of Central Excise vs M/S. Hollister Medical India Pvt. Ltd

[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No. 502-SVS-GGN-2013 dated 11/09/2013 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) Delhi III, Gurgaon, Haryana]

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 III

Vs.

M/s. Hollister Medical India Pvt. Ltd. Respondent

Appearance:

Shri R K Mishra, AR for the Appellants

Ms Parul Nagpal, Advocate for the Respondent

CORAM:

Hon'ble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)

Date of Hearing /decision: 22.05.2015

FINAL ORDER NO. A/ 51709 /2015-(SM)

Per Ashok Jindal :

Revenue is in appeal against the impugned order wherein the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has allowed the cenvat credit to the respondent on outdoor catering services, rent-a-cab service, work contract service namely, installation of HBAC system and denial of cenvat credit on the capital goods..

2. Heard the parties. Considered the submissions.

3. For availment of cenvat credit on outdoor catering services, rent-a-cab service and work contract service, the appellant is entitled to take cenvat credit as held by Honble High Court of Bombay in the case of CCE vs. Ultratech Cement [2010 (20) STR 577(Bom)], wherein it has been that any service availed by the assessee being a manufacturer of excisable goods during the course of their business, the appellant is entitled to take cenvat credit on outdoor catering service and rent-a-cab service on the ground that they have recovered the amount from the employees for providing the above said two services. From the facts of the case it is not ascertainable therefore, matter needs verification at the end of adjudicating authority to quantify the amount of inadmissible cenvat credit pertaining to outdoor catering service and rent-a-cab service as discussed hereinabove.

4. Further, I find that denial of cenvat credit on capital goods have not been disputed by the appellant even before learned Commissioner (Appeals). Therefore, same cannot be the issue to be raised before me by Revenue by way of this appeal. In these terms, matter is disposed of by way of remand to quantify the amount of inadmissible cenvat credit on outdoor catering service and rent-a-cab service ( an amount of service tax on amount recovered from the employees for providing the said two services). The adjudicating authority shall call the records from the respondent to quantify the amount of inadmissible cenvat credit as discussed above.

5. With these observations, the appeal is disposed of by way of remand. The cross objection is also disposed of in the above manner.

(Dictated and pronounced in the open court )

( Ashok Jindal ) Member(Judicial)

ss

2