M/S. Trelleborg Sealing Solutions ... vs Commissioner Of Central Excise ...

[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 305/2011-CE dated 28/09/2011 passed by CCE(Appeals), Bangalore]

For approval and signature:

HON'BLE SMT. ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER

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. Trelleborg Sealing Solutions India Pvt. Ltd. Appellant(s)

Versus

Commissioner of Central Excise Bangalore Respondent(s)

Appearance:

Shri K. Krishnamurthy, Advocate For the Appellant

Shri Pakshi Rajan, Asst. Commissioner(AR) For the Respondent

Date of Hearing: 30/01/2015

Date of Decision: 

CORAM:

HON'BLE SMT. ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Final Order No. / 2015

Per : ARCHANA WADHWA

In the present impugned orders, the lower authorities have denied the CENVAT credit of service tax to the extent of Rs.47,400/- in respect of service tax paid on pest control service, housekeeping service, outward courier service and general insurance service. Further an amount of Rs.66,511/- availed in respect of capital goods stands denied to the appellant on the ground that the same cannot be considered to be the capital goods.

2. As regards the input service tax credit, I find that the issues are covered by various decisions of the Tribunal as also of courts. One such reference can be made to Karnataka High Courts decision in the case of CCE, Bangalore Vs. Stanzen Toyotetsu India Pvt. Ltd. [2011(23) STR 444 (Kar.)]. As such, I am of the view that the appellant is entitled to avail credit in respect of the input services.

3. As regards the capital goods, the learned advocate explains that the same are storage racks and the granite surface plate. He submits that even though the said goods are classifiable under Chapter 68 and are not covered by the specified chapters in the main definition of capital goods, the same would fall under the category of components, spares and accessories of the main capital goods. For the above proposition, he draws support from the Larger Bench decision in the case of Banco Products (India) Ltd. Vs. CCE, Vadodara-I [2009(235) ELT 636 (Tri.-LB)]. As regards plastic racks, he draws attention to the Tribunal decision in the case of CCE, Vadodara Vs. Silchar Technologies Ltd. [2013-TIOL-119-CESTAT-AHM].

4. Apart from holding that the said decisions cover the disputed issues, I also find the demand to be barred by limitation inasmuch as the show-cause notice was issued on 02/03/2010 covering the period from 02/2007 to 02/2009. As the appellant had availed the credit after recording the same in the statutory records, I find no justification for upholding the allegations of suppression or misstatement, with intent to evade payment of duty. The issue, in any case, is a disputed issue on the interpretation of legal provisions and cannot be held attributable to any suppression etc. In the absence of mala fide, the invocation of longer period of limitation was not justified. Accordingly I set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief to the appellant.

(Pronounced on ..)

ARCHANA WADHWA JUDICIAL MEMBER

Raja.

3