Jai Chemicals vs C.C.E.-Delhi-Iv

(Arising out of OIA No. 42/CE/Appeal/DLH-IV/2014 dated 03.04.2014 passed by Commissioner (Appeals) Central Excise, Delhi-IV)

1. Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?

2. Whether it would 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 Department Authorities?

Jai Chemicals Appellant

Vs.

C.C.E.-Delhi-iv Respondent

Appearance:

Present for the Appellant: Shri Vivek Agarwal, Advocate

Present for the Respondent: Shri G.R. Singh, DR

Coram: Honble Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial)

Final Order No. 52221/2015

Per: Sulekha Beevi C.S.

The appeal is filed against the impugned order which denied Cenvat Credit.

1. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Insecticides, Pesticides, Fungicides, Herbicides & Weedicides. They are also availing the benefit of Cenvat Credit. A Show Cause Notice dated 6.9.2012 was issued to the appellants alleging that appellants have availed credit on services not qualified as input services. The show cause notice finalized in the passing of the order dated 3.5.2013 which disallowed credit on services such as Professional Services, Medical Insurance, Car Insurance and Freight Out-ward services. The appellants filed appeal whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed part of their claim, but denied credit on Professional Services, Medical Insurance and Car Insurance. Hence this appeal.

2. The credit on Professional Services is seen denied for the reason that these services pertain to the factory located at Faridabad whereas the invoices issued contain the office address of the appellant at Delhi. In the case of Medical Insurance and Car Insurance, the same were denied for the reason that these services have no nexus with the activity of manufacture. On behalf of the appellants it was submitted that these services were awaited for the appellants factory located at Faridabad though the invoices were issued to the address at Delhi. Further, that these services are related to the business of manufacturer. The Ld. Counsel relied upon the judgments rendered in National Engineering Industries Ltd. Vs. CCE, Jaipur 2013 (30) S.T.R. 511 (Tri.-Del.) and Bloom Dekor Ltd. Vs. CCE, Ahmedabad 2012 (28) S.T.R. 182 (Tri.- Ahmd.). The learned DR assailed the impugned order reiterating the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals).

3. Heard both sides and perused the records. An amount of Rs.53,813/- has been disallowed on professional services, Car Insurance and Medical Insurance. The credit on service tax paid on Professional Services have been denied for the reason that the invoices issued by the service provider are to the appellants office at Delhi, whereas the factory of the appellant is located at Faridabad. There is no dispute about the service availed or the tax paid. Merely because the invoices did not contain the address of factory at Faridabad, which is purely technical, the appellants cannot be denied the benefit provided under law. The issue has been decided in favour of the assessee in Bloom Dekor Ltd. Vs. CCE, Ahmedabad and National Engineering Industries Ltd. Vs. CCE, Jaipur (supra) in which cases, the facts are similar to the instant case. Applying the ratio of the above judgments I am of the view that appellants are entitled to credit of the tax on Professional Services.

4. The credit on car Insurance and Medical Insurance were denied for the reason that they have no nexus with the activity of manufacture. During the relevant period the definition of input services had a very wide ambit covering all activities related to the business of manufacture. Therefore I do not find any reason to disallow the above.

5. In the result, the impugned order is set aside. The appeal is allowed with consequential relief if any.

(Dictated and pronounced in the open Court)

(Sulekha Beevi C.S.)

Member (Judicial)

K. Gupta

2