Terex Equipments Pvt.Ltd vs Cce, Noida
- CitationAppeal No.E/50525/2014, E/59030-59031//2013
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Repair and maintenance services rendered during the warranty period of goods sold are an activity relating to the sale of those goods, and input service credit on such services is therefore admissible to the manufacturer who pays the dealer for them; the fact that the service is provided after the sale of the equipment does not by itself take it outside the scope of input service credit, the Tribunal following its earlier decision that warranty repair and maintenance is relatable to sale of goods.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
(Arising out of OIA NOI/EXCUS/000/APPL/151/13 dt.30.7.13 and OIA No.96-97/CE/APPL/Noida/13 dt.29.4.13 passed by the CCE (Appeals), Noida)
Date of Hearing/Decision: 12.05.2015
For Approval & signature:
Honble Mr.Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)
1. Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? No 2. Whether it would 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 Department Authorities? Yes
Terex Equipments Pvt.Ltd. Appellant
Vs.
CCE, Noida Respondent
Present for the Appellant: Shri Rajesh Chhiber, Advocate
Present for the Respondent: Shri G.R.Singh, AR
Coram: Honble Mr.Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)
FINAL ORDER NO.51645-51647/2015
PER: ASHOK JINDAL
The appellant is in appeals against the impugned order wherein the input service credit on warranty service has been denied to them on the premises that the warranty service has been availed by the appellant after sale of equipments.
2. Heard the parties.
3. The facts of the case are that the appellant is manufacturer of equipments and selling these equipments through its dealers to the customers with warranty clause. During the impugned period, the dealers were repairing equipment and charging repair charges from the appellant. The appellant has been denied input service credit on the service charges paid to the dealers by the appellant during the warrant period. The Revenue is of the view that as the warranty service has been provided after sale of the equipments, therefore, the appellant is not entitled to input service credit.
4. The issue has been settled by this Tribunal in the case of CCE, Vadodara-II vs. Danke Products-2009 (16) STR 576 (Tri.-Ahmd.) wherein it has been held that repair and maintenance of transformers during warranty period is an activity of relating to sale of goods. Therefore, relying on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Danke Products (Supra), I hold that the appellant is entitled for input service credit on repair charges paid to the dealers by the appellant as the same is an activity relating to sale of goods by the appellant.
5. With these terms, I do not find any merit in the impugned orders and set aside the same. The appeals are allowed with consequential relief, if any. The application for extension of stay is also disposed in the above terms.
(Dictated & Pronounced in the open court)
(ASHOK JINDAL)
MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
mk
3 3
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