M/S. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise
- CitationExcise Appeal No. 58040 of 2013 - Ex (SM)
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Input service credit on outdoor catering and tours and travel services cannot be denied merely on the ground that they do not fall within the definition of "input service" under Rule 2(l) of the Central Excise Rules, 2004, where the services were used by the assessee in the course of its business of manufacturing; the question is whether the services were so used, and that must be verified on facts before credit is allowed or denied.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No. 34/CE/D-II/2013 dated 6.3.2013 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Delhi III, Gurgaon]
For approval and signature:
Honble Mr Ashok Jindal, 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. Appellants
Vs.
Commissioner of Central Excise . Respondent
Delhi III
Appearance:
Shri R S Tondon, Advocate for the Appellants
Shri R K Mishra, AR for the Respondent
CORAM:
Hon'ble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)
Date of Hearing /decision: 01.1.2015
FINAL ORDER NOS. A/ 50033 /2015-Ex(SM)
Per Ashok Jindal :
The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order wherein the inputs service credit has been denied on outdoor catering services as well as tours and travel services on the premise that same do not qualify as inputs services as per Rule 2(l) of Central Excise Rules, 2004.
2. Heard the parties.
3. Considering the fact that both the services as claimed by the appellant were used by them in the course of their business of manufacturing. Therefore, I hold that appellants are entitled to take Cenvat credit of services tax paid on these services subject to the verification of usage of services in the course of their business of manufacturing. For that purpose, matter is remanded back to the adjudicating authority to verify the fact that whether these services were used by the appellant during the course of their business of manufacturing. Therefore, appeal is disposed of by way of remand.
(dictated and pronounced in the open court )
( Ashok Jindal ) Member(Judicial)
ss
??
??
??
??
2
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free