Siemens Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ...

[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 73/2011 (H-IV) CE dated 23/09/2011 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax, Hyderabad.]

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? 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

Siemens Ltd Plot Nos.89 & 90, Ida, Gandhi Nagar, Hyderabad. Appellant(s)

Versus

Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax HYDERABAD-II L.B STADIUM ROAD, BASHEERBAGH, HYDERABAD, - 500004 ANDHRA PRADESH Respondent(s)

Appearance:

Mr. Raghavendra.B. Advocate LAKSHMI KUMARAN & SRIDHARAN WORLD TRADE CENTRE NO.404-406, 4TH FLOOR, SOUTH WING BRIGADE GATEWAY CAMPUS NO.26/1, DR. RAJKUMAR ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 055. KARNATAKA For the Appellant

Mr. S. Ilangovan, Asst. Commissioner (AR) For the Respondent

Date of Hearing: 19/06/2015

Date of Decision: 19/06/2015

CORAM:

HON'BLE SMT. ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Final Order No. 21386 / 2015

Per : ARCHANA WADHWA

The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of isolators and entered into a contract with the customers for supply of such isolators as also for installation and erection of the same at the site. The contract is a composite contract and the value of the installation and erection, etc., is included in the total assessable value of the isolators, on which duty of excise is paid.

2. However, the appellants availed the services of third party for doing the work of erection at site, who has paid the service tax on the same and appellant has availed the credit of the said service tax.

3. Revenue by entertaining a view that such services availed at site have no nexus with the manufacturing activity of the appellant, sought to deny the credit to them. Further, the credit of service tax paid on the CHA services utilized for export stands denied to them on the ground that they have no nexus with the appellants activity of manufacture.

4. After hearing both the sides, I find that both the issues are covered in favour of the appellant by various decisions of the Tribunal. In respect of credit availed on erection and installation service, reference can be made to the Tribunals decision in the case of Alidhara Texspin Engineers vs. CCE, Vapi: 2010 (20) S.T.R. 315 (Tri.-Ahmd.) wherein under identical situation, Tribunal held that service tax paid by the subcontractor at the time of erection, installation and commissioning is available as credit to the appellant. Similarly, in the case of CCE, Vapi vs. Alidhara Textool Engineers Pvt. Ltd.: 2009 (239) E.L.T. 334 (Tri.-Ahmd.), such service tax was held to be available as credit to the assessee inasmuch as the order placed upon the assessee was inclusive of the erection, installation at site and the excise duty was paid on the full value of the contract. By following the said decisions, I hold that the service tax would be available to the appellant, on the said ground.

4.1 As regards the service tax paid on CHA service, the issue stand decided by the Tribunals decision in the case of Adani Pharmachem (P) Ltd. vs. CCE: 2009 (238) E.L.T. 179 (Tri.-Ahmed.) as also Tribunals decision in the case of MTR Foods. Ltd. vs. CCE, Bangalore: 2011 (22) S.T.R. 342 (Tri.-Bang.). As such, in terms of the above decisions, credit of service tax paid on CHA services would also be available to the appellant.

5. In view of the above, I set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief to the appellant.

(Order pronounced in open court)

ARCHANA WADHWA JUDICIAL MEMBER rv 3