M/S. Rockman Industries Ltd vs Cc, Delhi-Ii
- CitationExcise Appeal No.E/57507/2013 EX. [SM]
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Cenvat credit on service tax paid for services used in the appellant's business activities, namely air travel services and insurance services (including group medical/health insurance for employees and insurance on vehicles), is available as credit on input services within the inclusive part of the definition in Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, where such services are used for accomplishing the business activities of the assessee. Denial of Cenvat credit on such services, on the ground that they do not fall within the definition of input service, is not proper where the services are used in the assessee's business, and an order denying such credit is liable to be set aside.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
[Arising out of Order-in-Original No.CCA/CHD/09/2013 dated 21.01.2013 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (A), New Delhi]
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. Rockman Industries Ltd. Appellant
Vs.
CC, Delhi-II Respondent
Present for the Appellant : Shri J.P. Kaushik, Advocate
Present for the Respondent: Shri R.K. Gupta, DR
Coram: HONBLE MR. S.K. MOHANTY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
Date of Hearing/Decision: 22.07.2015
FINAL ORDER NO. 53279/2015
PER: S.K. MOHANTY
This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 21.01.2013, wherein while allowing the Revenues appeal against the adjudication order dated 15.02.2011, the ld. Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) has held that the disputed services are not confirming to the definition of input service contained in Rule 2 (l) of the cenvat credit Rules, 2004, and thus, Cenvat credit on those services will not be available to the appellant.
2. Shri J.P. Kaushik, the ld. Advocate appearing for the appellant submits that upon analysis of the statutory provisions vis-a-vis nature of the disputed services used by the appellant for its business activities, the ld. Adjudicating authority has dropped the show cause proceedings. According to the ld. Advocate, since the duty demand has been dropped based on the report submitted by the jurisdictional Range Superintendent, the credit cannot be denied on the ground that the disputed services will not be considered as input service.
3. Per contra, the ld. DR Shri R.K. Gupta appearing for the respondent reiterates the findings recorded in the impugned order.
4. I have heard the ld. Counsel for both sides and perused the records.
5. I find that the adjudicating authority has allowed the cenvat credit on the disputed services namely, air travel service and insurance service on the ground that those services have been used by the appellant for accomplishing its business related activities, which falls under the scope and ambit of the inclusive part definition of input Service contained in rule 2 (l) of the Rules. Further, I find that the Honble Karnataka High Court in the case of CCE & ST, LTU, Bangalore vs. Micro Labs Ltd., reported in 2011 (24) S.T.R. 272 (Kar.) has allowed cenvat credit of service tax paid by the employer for the group medical/health insurance policy taken in favour of employees. Further, this Tribunal in the case of Manikgarh Cement vs. CCE & Cus., Nagpur reported in 2012 (284) E.L.T. 607 (Tri.-Mumbai) has allowed the cenvat credit of service tax paid on the insurance premium for the vehicles. The Ahmedabad Bench of this Tribunal in the case of CCE, Ahmedabad vs. Fine Care Bio-systems reported in 2009 (244) E.L.T. 372 (Tri.-Ahmd.) has also allowed the cenvat credit of service tax paid on air ticket service charges for performing the air travel for the purpose of the companys business. In view of the settled position of law, I am of the considered opinion that denial of Cenvat credit to the appellant in the impugned order is not proper and justified.
6. Therefore, the impugned order 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 4
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