Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... vs M/S. Taiyo Lucid P. Ltd

(Arising out Order-in-Appeal No. AGS (239-240) 111,112/09 dated 17.11.2009 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Aurangabad)

For approval and signature: Honble Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial)

1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see No 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 Yes of the Order?

4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental Yes authorities?

Commissioner of Central Excise, Aurangabad Appellant

Vs.

M/s. Taiyo Lucid P. Ltd. Respondent

Appearance:

Shri H.M. Dikshit, AC (AR) for the appellant Ms. Padmavati Patil, Advocate for the respondent

CORAM:

Honble Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial)

Date of hearing : 18.03.2015 Date of decision : 18.03.2015

O R D E R No:..

All these appeals are disposed of by common order as they pertain to the same assessee and same issue.

2. Heard both sides and perused the records.

3. On perusal of the records, it transpires that the revenue is in appeal against the Order-in-Appeal which has allowed the refund claim filed by the assessee of the service tax paid on various services which were used for manufacturing of goods and subsequently export thereon. Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has allowed the refund claim of service tax paid on CHA service, retainer ship service, insurance of Jodhpur godown, marine open policy, money insurance policy, personal accident policy and rejected the claim as refund claim of service tax paid on gardening service. The assessee respondent is not in appeal against the rejection of the service tax refund on the gardening services. I find from the grounds of appeal that the revenue is aggrieved against the grounds that all the services has indicated hereinabove did not play any role in the manufacturing activity and are not used in the activity of exporting the goods and all these services are utilized after the manufacturing activity has taken place.

4. In my considered view, the first appellate authority was correct in coming to a conclusion that the service tax paid on the services and used for manufacturing of final products which have been exported, refund claim is to be allowed.

5. I find that the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in Stanzen Toyotetsu India 2011 (23) STR 444 (kar) has specifically laid down that service tax credit of insurance, rent a cab services are eligible for availment of Cenvat credit. I also find that the coordinate bench in Adani Pharmachem 2008 (12) STR 593 has laid down the service tax on CHA services used for export are eligible for availment of Cenvat credit. Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in Dynamic Industries Ltd. 2014 (35) STR 674 (Guj) has upheld such a view. The ratio of these decisions is very clear inasmuch the policy of the Central Govt. of India is for export of the goods and not for export of taxes. In all these cases, there is no dispute as to fact the respondent is eligible to avail the Cenvat credit. If he is eligible to Cenvat credit having exported the goods, he should be allowed to refund of service tax liability used for export during the particular period.

6. In view of the foregoing, I do not find any merits in appeals filed by the revenue and they are rejected. The impugned orders are upheld as correct and legal.

(Pronounced in Court)

(M.V. Ravindran) Member (Judicial)

//SR

3