Novozymes South Asia Pvt. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ...

[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 99/2009 dated 28/08/2009 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore]

For approval and signature:

HON'BLE MRS. 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? No 2 Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? No 3 Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order? Seen 4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities? Yes

Novozymes South Asia Pvt. Ltd. 193, Hoody Circle,Whitefield Road, Bangalore Appellant(s)

Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax Bangalore-I Post Box No. 5400, CR Buildings, Bangalore  560 001 Karnataka Respondent(s)

Appearance:

Ms. Preetha, Advocate For the Appellant

Mr. R. Gurunathan, DR For the Respondent

Date of Hearing: 26/06/2015 Date of Decision: 26/06/2015 CORAM:

HON'BLE MRS. ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Final Order No. 21491 / 2015

The appellants have been denied the cenvat credit to the extent of Rs. 10,22,598/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs Twenty Two Thousand Five Hundred and Ninety Eight only), availed by them in respect of various services on the ground that the said services stand utilized by them not only in respect of their manufacturing unit but also by their units like trading and overseas branches.

2. The grievance of the appellant is that there is no quantification of the demand relatable to the said activities and the Revenue was not justified in denying the entire credit availed by them during the period October 2005 to May 2006. As such denial of the entire credit was not in accordance with law. She also submitted that even if some of the input services were used for trading purposes, still they would be entitled to the entire credit in terms of the various precedent decisions. She also assails the impugned order on limitation.

3. After hearing the learned DR I find that it is not clear on record as to whether the entire credit stands denied to the appellant or it is only the proportionate credit which has been used in respect of exempted services. Otherwise I agree with the learned advocate that the entire service tax credit cannot be denied. As such I deem it fit to set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the original adjudicating authority for fresh decision. Needless to say the appellant would cooperate and the adjudicating authority would take into consideration the various decisions of the higher appellate forums, produced by the appellant in support of their contention. The issue of limitation would also be reconsidered by the adjudicating authority, by taking into consideration the fact that the entire credit was availed by the appellant by reflecting the same in the statutory records as also in monthly returns. Appeal is disposed of in the above terms.

(Order pronounced in open court)

(ARCHANA WADHWA) JUDICIAL MEMBER

iss