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

[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 26/SA/CCE/2013 dated 20.02.2013 by the Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax (Appeals), Gurgaon].

For approval and signature:

Honble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)

Hon'ble Shri B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical)

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. .Appellants

Vs.

C.C.E. Delhi-III .Respondent

.

Appearance:

Shri B.L. Narsimhan, Advocate for the Appellant

Shri Pamod Kumar, DR for the Respondent

CORAM:

Hon'ble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)

Hon'ble Shri B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical)

Date of Hearing: 30.07.2015

FINAL ORDER NO. 52412/2015-EX(DB)

Per Ashok Jindal:

The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order for denial of Cenvat Credit availed by them on common input services received pertaining to their Gurgaon and Manesar unit together. The appellant is also challenging the denial of transfer of Cenvat Credit unutilized lying in the account of M/s. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. which was merged with Maruti Suzuki Udyog Ltd.

2. The facts in the case are that the appellant is a manufacturer of motor vehicle and parts thereon. The appellant is having two units. One is located at Gurgaon other at Manesar. Appellant availed certain input services which are common for both the units as the invoices were used in the name of Gurgaon unit. Therefore, appellant availed entire Cenvat Credit on these services in their Gurgaon unit. The Revenue objected to that on the ground that as certain input services pertains to Manesar unit, therefore, they are not entitled to take entire Cenvat Credit on these common input services. The Revenue also sought to deny Cenvat Credit to Gurgaon unit on the ground that the capital goods were not being transferred to Gurgaon unit on merger of Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. with Maruti Udyog Ltd. On these set of facts a show cause notice was issued to deny Cenvat Credit and later on matter was adjudicated by confirming demand on account of denial of Cenvat Credit on both the grounds along with interest and equivalent amount of penalty was also imposed. Against the said order appellant is before us.

3. Heard the parties.

4. Considering the fact that the issue on account of availment of Cenvat Credit on common input services by one unit has been settled by this Tribunal in the case of Doshion Ltd. Vs. CCE Ahmedabad-2013 (288) ELT 291 (Tri-Amd) wherein this Tribunal has observed as under:

We have considered the submissions made by both sides. We find considerable force in the arguments advanced by the Ld. Cousnel. The registered office and Vatva office both are located in the same place and appellant has simply utilized the credit at Vatva instead of distributing it to various units. As submitted by the ld. Counsel during the relevant period, there was no restriction for utilization of such credit without allocating proportionately to various units. The omission to take registration as an Input Service Distributor can at best be considered as procedural irregularity and in view of the decisions cited, has to be considered sympathetically. Further, it is also noticed that appellant has not got any extra benefit by doing this.

5. As there is no ban on availment of Cenvat Credit of one unit if input service pertains to both the units prior to 2012, therefore, we follow the decision of Doshion Ltd. and hold that appellant is not required to reverse Cenvat Creidt on Rs. 56,41,18,612/-. We further find that Cenvat Credit of Rs. 8,57,44,621/- is also denied on account of merger of Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. with Maruti Udyog Ltd. Since, both the units have been merged, therefore, appellant is entitled to transfer Cenvat Credit lying unutilized in the Cenvat Credit account of the unit merged with the main unit. Therefore, appellant is entitled to take Cenvat Credit to the extent of Rs. 8,57,44,621/- in terms of Rule 10 of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004.

6. With these terms, we do not find any merit in the impugned order. Same is set aside. Appeal is allowed with consequential relief if any.

0

(Dictated and pronounced in the open court)

(B. Ravichandran) (Ashok Jindal) Member (Technical) Member (Judicial)

Bhanu

2

E/57560/2013-EX(DB)