M/S.Denso India Limited vs Cce, Noida

[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. NOI/EXCUS/ 000/APPL/ 04/14 dated 15.01.20014 passed by the CCE(A), 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?

__________________________________________________

M/s.Denso India Limited Appellant

Vs.

CCE, Noida  Respondent

Present for the Appellant : Shri Rahul Tangri, CA

Present for the Respondent: Shri Devender Singh, DR

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

Date of Hearing/Decision: 10.06.2015

FINAL ORDER NO. 53302/2015

PER: S.K. MOHANTY

Brief facts of the case are that during the disputed period, show cause notice was issued to the appellant, seeking denial of Cenvat credit taken on rent-a-cab service on the ground that the said service has been utilized for transportation of family members and also used for conveyance of the staff from the residence to the factory and vice versa. The show cause notice was adjudicated vide order dated 09.09.2013, wherein it has been specifically observed by the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise that the disputed service has not been used either by the employees or by their family members. However, the cenvat credit was confirmed in the adjudication order on the ground that the disputed service has no nexus with the manufacture of finished product by the appellant. In appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) vide the impugned order dated 15.01.2014 has upheld the impugned order. Hence, the present appeal before this Tribunal.

3. Heard the ld. Counsel for both the sides and perused the records.

4. I find that the adjudication order dated 09.09.2013 has traversed beyond the scope of show cause notice, inasmuch as, the proposal made therein was to deny the cenvat credit on the ground that the disputed service has been used for transportation of the family members and the employees of the appellants company. Since, the adjudicating authority has held that the allegations are not correct; he should have simply dropped those proposals. Instead, he chose to deny the Cenvat benefit entirely on a new ground which has not been proposed in the show cause notice. Thus, in my considered view, both the authorities below have committed gross error in denying the Cenvat benefit to the appellant.

5. I also find from the available records that the disputed service has been used by the appellant for accomplishing the business activities, which is evident from the vehicle booking requisition slip enclosed in the appeal memorandum, wherein the purpose of visit has been mentioned as official. Since, the disputed service is used for the activity relating to business, and the period in dispute is prior to amendment of Rule 2 (l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, the cenvat credit taken on the disputed service is eligible to the appellant.

6. In view of above, the impugned order denying the cenvat credit benefit is set aside and the appeal is allowed in favour of the appellant.

(Dictated and pronounced in the open Court)

(S.K. MOHANTY)

MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

Anita

??

??

??

??

0 2