M/S Maruti Suzuki India Ltd vs C.C.E. Delhi-Iii

[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No. 144/SA/CCE/2013 dated: 11.11.2013 passed by CCE Delhi-III]

For approval and signature:

Hon'ble 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 Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. ...Appellant

Vs.

C.C.E. Delhi-III Respondent

Appearance:

Mr. B L Narsimhan, Advocate for the Appellants

Mr. Devender Singh, DR for the Respondent

CORAM:

Hon'ble Mr. S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial)

Date of Hearing.11.06.2015

FINAL ORDER NO. 54134-54137 /2015

Per S. K. Mohanty (for the Bench):

Heard both sides and perused the records.

2. The issue involved in these appeals relates to taking of cenvat credit on Mandap Keeper/Convention service, which has been denied by the authorities below. Since, the issue is identical, all the appeals are taken up together and a common order is being passed.

3. With regard to the Appeal Nos. E/51085/2014 & E/51105/2014, the issue involved is disallowance of cenvat credit on Mandap Keeper Service. According to the appellant, the said service has been used to organize the meeting and events for promotion of their product such as launch of new vehicle, business meets, conference etc. Thus, according to the appellant, such services are confirming to the definition of input service under the head 'sales promotion activities'. I find that the credit has been denied on the said services on the sole ground that the same have not been used directly or indirectly, in or in relation to manufacture and clearance of the final product. The other reason assigned for disallowance of the credit is that the said services are used primarily for personal use or consumption of the employees. In this regard, I perused the invoices raised by Hotel Maratha, Mumbai to the appellants and also the internal approval note of the appellant, indicating the purpose for which the payment has been made. In the said internal note, it has been clearly mentioned that for launching a new swift desire car, the said expenditure has been incurred by the appellant, which is nothing but the sales promotion activities of their product, which falls under the inclusive part of the definition of input service. I find that this Bench of the Tribunal in the case of the appellant, for an earlier period, vide Final Order dated 14.05.2015 has allowed the cenvat credit taken on Mandap Keeper Service utilized for the sales promotion activity. Thus, in my considered view, denial of cenvat credit on the Mandap Keeper Service is not in conformity with the Cenvat statute, and accordingly, the impugned orders are set aside and the appeals are allowed in favour of the appellant.

4. With regard to Appeal Nos. E/51086/2014 & 51087/2014, the convention service is in dispute, on which cenvat credit has been denied on the ground that the conference, workshops and seminars etc., are of general nature which are not related to the automobile industry. In this regard, I have perused the invoices issued by the service provider. In the invoice No. 93021 dated 4.4.2012 issued by M/s Automotive Research Association of India, the description of service has been mentioned as delegate fees for two participants - three day VIP Programme on Vehicle Dynamics and Hardware Loop from 4.4.2012. Further, in the invoice dated 22.3.2011, the said service provider has described the service as "Proficiency Improvement Programme on REACH registration, devaluation, authorization and registration of chemicals - obligation for automotive industry from 7th to 8th June, 2010". Perusal of the invoices makes the position clear that the services indicated therein are confirming to the taxable service i.e. Coaching and Training, which is specifically finding place in the definition of input service for the purpose of taking the Cenvat credit. Accordingly, denial of Cenvat credit on the disputed service namely, convention service is not proper and justified, and thus, the impugned order is set aside and the appeals are allowed in favour of the appellants.

5. All these appeals are disposed of in above terms.

(Dictated and pronounced in open court)

(S.K. Mohanty)

Member(Judicial)

Neha

Page | 1