M/S. Pfizer Limited vs Commissioner Of Central Excise

[Arising out of Order-in- Appeal No. PKS/98/BEL/2010 dtd. 9/6/2010 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai-III]

For approval and signature:

Honble Mr Ramesh Nair, Member(Judicial)

=======================================================

1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see : No 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 : seen of the Order?

4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental: Yes authorities? =======================================================

M/s. Pfizer Limited : Appellants

VS

Commissioner of Central Excise : Respondent

Appearance

Ms. Divya Jeswant, Advocate for the Appellants Shri. V.K. Shastri, Asst. Commissioner(A.R.) for the Respondent

CORAM:

Honble Mr. Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial)

Date of hearing: 3/7/2015 Date of decision: 3/7/2015

ORDER NO.

Per : Ramesh Nair

This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No.PKS/98/BEL/2010 dated 09.06.2010 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Mumbai-III, Mumbai Zone-II, wherein the Ld. Commissioner dismissed the Appeal filed by the Appellant.

2. The issue involved in the present case is the admissibility of cenvat credit in respect of various services distributed by their head office. The Adjudicating Authority has denied the cenvat credit and the same was upheld by the impugned order on the ground that the Appellant could not show any evidence to established that the services on which cenvat credit was taken, were used in or in relation to manufacture of final products or in relation to business activity of the Appellant, hence the said services are out of ambit of the input service as defined in Rule 2(l) of Cenvat credit Rules, 2004.

3. Ms. Diya Jaswant, Ld. Counsel for the Appellant submits that all the twentytwo services were indeed used in or in relation to the manufacture or the business activity of the Appellant, therefore the lower authorities are not correct in denying the credit. On query of the bench regarding production of evidence of use of each services before the lower authorities, she fairly accepts that no such evidence was produced by the Appellant either before the Adjudicating Authority or before the first Appellate Authority. However, she prays that if one chance is given, the Appellant shall submit the details of use of each service in question.

4. Shri V.K.Shastri, Ld. Assistant Commissioner (AR) reiterates the findings of the impugned order. He fairly submits that he has no objection if the matter is remanded for fresh order.

5. I have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides. I find from the original as wel as appellate order that the Appellant have not produced any evidence regarding the actual use of each service. In absence of details of use of service, only on the nomenclature of the service it can not be ascertained the nexus of the input services with the manufacture or the business activity of the Appellant. I am of the view, it will be just and proper in the interest of natural justice to give one chance to the Appellant for producing the details of the use of the subject input services. I therefore remand the matter to the original adjudicating authority for a fresh denovo adjudication after giving the opportunity to the Appellant of personal hearing and to produce all the evidences to justify their case, in particular, the use of the services. The appeal is allowed by way of remand.

(Operative part pronounced in court)

Ramesh Nair Member (Judicial) sk

3 E/1609/10