9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (10) TMI 676X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f removal (depot) as these Business Support Services are basically for movement of excisable goods as submitted by the appellants. Denial of CENVAT credit not justified - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Excise Appeals Nos. 251, 250, 387 and 388/2010-EX(DB) - Final Order Nos. 54062-54065/2016 - Dated:- 7-10-2016 - Shri S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial) And Shri B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical) Shri B.L. Narsimhan, Advocate for the appellants Shri Yogesh Aggarwal, AR for the respondent ORDER Per. B. Ravichandran These four appeals deal with the same subject of eligibility of the appellants for credit of duty paid on various input services availed by them during the period December, 2007 to May, 2009. The issue is decided in two orders dated 12.11.2009 and 2.12.2009. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of motor vehicle chassis liable to central excise duty. The appellants are clearing the motor vehicles chassis to the job worker on payment of central excise duty as applicable. The job worker manufactures body on the chassis and clears the same on payment of central excise duty as applic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nts in relation to the manufacture of final products. The expenditure incurred shall wholly and exclusively is for the purpose of their manufacturing and marketing business. As such, the credit on these services cannot be denied. (d) The scope of each one of the input service in dispute has been explained by the appellant along with their connection to the manufacture and marketing of the excisable goods. Large number of case laws were also cited in support of the claim in respect of each one of the input service. 6. Ld.AR contested the appeals stating that the Original Authority has examined the matter in detail and denied the credit accordingly. He reiterated the findings of the Original Authority in the impugned orders and submitted that these appeals are liable to be rejected. 7. We have heard both the sides and perused the appeal records. 8. We find that the eligibility of the appellants to avail the credit on these input services has come up earlier before this Tribunal. Vide Final Order No.52437/2016 dated 29.06.2016, in appellant s own case, the Tribunal examined eligibility of various input services and observed as below:- 6. The appellant is a manufacture ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nue of the advertisement services having a connection with the manufacture of the final product . On the admissibility of advertisement services, the appellant has also relied on the following case laws: * CCE vs. HCL Technologies Ltd. -2016 (42) STR 48 (Tri. Del.) * Greaves Cotton Ltd. vs. CCE, Chennai-II IV-2015 (37) STR 395 (Tri. Chennai) * Agriculture Products Market Committee vs. CCE, Vadodara-II 2013 (30) STR 558 (Tri. Ahmd.) The above decisions squarely cover the credit availed on advertisement agency service even though such advertisements are for the complete vehicles, and not only for chassis. Now we turn to the various services in the above cluster. (i) Credit of tax paid on market research agency service , has been specifically allowed also in the following cases in addition to the Coca Cola case (supra): * UG Sugar Industries Ltd. vs. CCE 2016-TIOL-1255-CESTAT-ALL * Gujarat Reclaim Rubber Products Ltd. 2013 TIOL-509-CESTAT-Mad. (ii) The service tax paid on telephone, tours travel services stand disallowed in the impugned order also for the reason that such services have been availed in the regional office and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it as welfare activity not related to manufacture. We find that similar services have been specifically allowed in the case of Toyota Kirloskar Motor Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, LTU Bangalore 2011 (24) STR 645 (Kar.). 8. The following services stand disallowed for the reason that they are not in relation to the manufacturing activity. * Life Insurance Service * Courier Services * Repair Maintenance Service * Real Estate Service * Canteen Service (i) We find that life insurance service on premium paid for employees have been held as allowable in the case of Reliance Industries Ltd. vs. CCE ST, Mumbai 2015 (38) STR 217 (Tri. Mumbai). (ii) Courier services used for getting DEPB, DEEC, EPCG Schemes permissions etc. have been allowed in Meghmani Organics Ltd. vs. CCE, Ahmedabad 2012 (26) STR 555 (Tri.). (iii) Repair maintenance service used for photocopying, fax, AC s, water coolers etc. at regional offices have also been held to be allowable in Parason Machinery (I) Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, Aurangabad 2012 (277) ELT 215 (Tri. Mum.) (iv) Real Estate Service used for procurement of premises on rental basis for regional offices have also been al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al products (ii) Any service used by the manufacturer whether directly or indirectly, in or in relation to clearance of final products from the place of removal (iii) Services used in relation to setting up, modernization, renovation or repairs of a factory, or an office relating to such factory, (iv) Services used in relation to advertisement or sales promotion, market research, storage upto the place of removal, procurement of inputs, (v) Services used in relation to activities relating to business and outward transportation upto the place of removal. Each limb of the definition of input service can be considered as an independent benefit or concession exemption. If an assessee can satisfy any one of the limbs of the above benefit, exemption or concession, then credit of the input service would be available. This would be so even if the assessee does not satisfy other limb/limbs of the above definition. To illustrate, input services used in relation to setting up, modernization, renovation or repairs of a factory will be allowed as credit, even if they are assumed as not an activity relating to business as long as they are associated directly or indirectl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al manufactured product. The logistic support provided by the service provider is for transportation of the chassis manufactured by the appellants from the factory to the premises of the body builders; for transportation of the vehicles from the premises of the body builders to the depot of the appellant and for transportation of the vehicles from depot to the premises of the customers, as the case may be. The said service providers have raised invoices on the appellants for the said support services along with any service tax payable thereon. The appellants have paid service tax to the respective service providers. These facts were not disputed. We note that in the present case, the appellants are not claiming tax credit on the transportation charges. The service tax paid is on the Business Support Service of logistics provided. We note that the Hon ble Punjab Haryana High Court in the case of Ambuja Cements Ltd. 2009 (14) STR 3 ( P H) held that when freight charges are integral part of the excisable goods, in case of FOR destination price, hence, when the ownership of the goods and the property in goods has not been transferred to the seller till delivery of the goods in accep ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
