9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (3) TMI 994X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ect of the government is to export the goods and services and not the taxes. If the refund of service tax paid on input services is not allowed to the appellant then the said taxes would have to be built in the cost of the final products and thus it would lead to export of taxes which are against the policy of the government. - Decided in favour of assessee - Appeal No. E/1345-1346/2010- Mum - A/85726-85727/16/SMB - Dated:- 11-2-2016 - Hon ble Mr. S.S. Garg, Member (Judicial) For the Appellant : Ms. Anjali Hirawat, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri S.V. Naik, AC (AR) ORDER The appellant has filed two appeals against the decision of Commissioner (Appeals) who vide Order-in-Appeal No. PI/VSK/70 71/2010 dated 26.04.2010 dismissed the refund claim filed by the appellant. Since the issue involved in both the appeals is same, therefore both the appeals are disposed of by a common order. 2. The brief facts of the present case are that the appellant is a 100% EOU and the products manufactured by the appellant are entirely cleared for export. They manufacture excisable goods electrical wires, accessories of aluminium, zinc and copper alloys. The entire production ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4 CHA (Supporting Invoices) 1,00,474/- 1,05,633 5 Insurance Premium 74,417/- -- 6 CHA (GTA) 721/- 160/- 7 BAS (Carpentry) -- 541/- 8 GTA (double) -- 173/- Total 2,46,739/- 1,10,439/- 4. The appellants filed appeals against the aforesaid Orders-in-Original, to the extent it rejected the refund of credit of ₹ 2,46,739/- and ₹ 1,10,439/-. The Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Pune I passed a common Order-in-Appeal dated 26.4.2010 rejecting the appeals filed by appellants. Hence, the present appeals (Appeal No. E/1345/2010 Unit I Appeal No. E/1346/2010 Unit II). 5. The counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) is wrong on facts as well as on law and the finding of the ld. Commissioner is perverse and is liable t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t. It is therefore submitted that Chartered Accountant service is very much essential for the business of the appellants and is an input service . In this regard, he relied on the following decisions:- i) CCE Vs Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Ltd. 2011 (23) STR 268 (T) ii) CCE Vs Andhra Pradesh Paper Mills Ltd. 2011 (22) STR 126 (T) 7. Secondly, with regard to insurance premium, wherein he has taken Cenvat Credit of ₹ 74,417/- in Unit I and the credit of the same was denied by the department. The appellant took the Cenvat Credit on the basis of insurance premium bills covering staff of Unit I, Unit II and Jaipur unit. The refund sanctioning authority has allowed the credit on insurance premium to the extent it pertains to Unit I. Therefore, the fact that the said service qualifies as input service is not in dispute. Secondly, Unit I, Unit II and Jaipur Unit all form part of the same legal entity. Therefore, denial of credit in respect of insurance premium pertaining to Unit II and Jaipur Unit is not tenable. In any case, it is not the case of the department that credit of the same amount on the basis of the same insurance bills has been taken by the other Units also a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... import consignments. Therefore, it is submitted that the services received from CHA and other service providers qualify as input service and credit of service tax paid on the same is admissible. In support of the admissibility of credit on the aforesaid CHA service, the appellants rely on the following decisions:- i) Amar International Vs CST 2015 (37) STR 810 (T) ii) Devesh Agriexim Pvt Ltd Vs CST 2014 (36) STR 1116 (T) iii) Chandra Engineers Vs CCE 2013 (30) STR 699 (T) 9. On the other hand, ld. AR reiterates the findings of the Commissioner and submitted that the services on which the Cenvat Credit has been denied is not in or in relation to the manufacture of the final product and clearance of final product from the place of removal. He further submitted that the said input services did not fall in the definition of input service definition as contained in rule 2(l) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. 10. I have heard the ld. Counsel for the parties and perused the records. 11. On going through the submissions made by both sides, I find that the main issue involved in this case is relating to disallowance of Cenvat Credit of service tax paid on services namely cate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
