Vinyl Chemicals vs Cce Raigad
- CitationAPPEAL NO. E/85546/13 Mum
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Tribunal holds that CENVAT credit of service tax paid on security services rendered at the factory premises and on rent-a-cab services hired for marketing staff is admissible, because the authorities below denied it contrary to the settled position of law laid down by the High Courts of Karnataka and Gujarat in the decisions it relies upon, which hold such services eligible for CENVAT credit; an order that departs from that settled law is unsustainable and is set aside.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI COURT NO. II
APPEAL NO. E/85546/13 Mum
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. US/728/RGD/2012 dated 29.10.2012 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai II)
For approval and signature: Shri. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial)
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see : No 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 : No CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : Seen of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental : Yes authorities?
Vinyl Chemicals : Appellant
Versus
CCE Raigad
Respondent
Appearance
Shri Jeffrey Pereira, Head-Indirect Taxes for Appellants Shri N.N. Prabhudesai, Supdt. (A.R.) for Respondents
CORAM:
Shri. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial)
Date of Hearing : 01.04.2015 Date of Decision : 01.04.2015
ORDER NO.
Per : M.V. Ravindran This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No. US/728/RGD/2012 dated 29.10.2012.
2. Heard both sides and perused the records.
3. The issue involved in this case is regarding denial of CENVAT credit to the appellant of the service tax paid on Security Services and Rent-a-Cab Service. Both the lower authorities held that these two services do not have nexus with the manufacturing of final product. It is the case of the appellant that the Security Services are rendered at the factory premises and Rent-a-Cab services are hired for the marketing staff who sell the products manufactured by them.
3. I find that the first appellate authority is totally invariance of law settled by various High Courts on the issue.
4. As regards the CENVAT credit of service tax liability relating to security of establishment, the Honble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Toyota Kirloskar Motor Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE - 2011 (24) STR 645 (Kar.) has held that such services are eligible to avail CENVAT credit; High Court of Gujarat in an appeal filed by Revenue in the case of CCE v. Mundra Port & Special Economic Zone Ltd. - 2011 (21) STR 361 has held that the service tax paid on Rent-a-Cab service are eligible to be availed as CENVAT credit. Same view has been expressed by the Honble High Court of Karnataka in the case of CCE v. Slanzen Toplet - 2011 (23) STR 444 (Kar.)
5. In view of the above settled positions of law in respect of these two services, I find that the impugned order is unsustainable and is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, I set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal. (Dictated in Court)
(M.V. Ravindran) Member (Judicial)
nsk
??
??
??
??
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