9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 55X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty located in Mumbai is wrong - appeal allowed - decided in favor of assessee. - E/21574/2014-SM, E/21575/2014-SM, E/21384/2015-SM,E/21602/2016-SM - Final Order No. 20104-20107 / 2017 - Dated:- 30-1-2017 - Shri S. S. Garg, Judicial Member For the Appellant : Mr. S. Sivakumar Adv For the Respondent : Dr. Ezhilmathi, AR ORDER Per S. S. Garg The appellants have filed four appeals against different impugned orders, the details of which are given below: Appeal No. OIA No. Period Amount E/21574/2014 No.28/2014CE April 2010 - June 2011 ₹ 16,91,354/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed 14.2.2014 demanding reversal of CENVAT credit of service tax on the ground that the service tax paid pertains to the rental charges of immovable property situated at Mumbai, housing the corporate office of the assessee. These premises are not connected to the manufacturing activity and clearance of the finished goods, therefore the service received is not in or in relation to the manufacture of final product and clearance thereof. Further, the renting of immovable property is not specifically recognized as an input service as per Rule 2(l) of CENVAT Credit Rules (CCR), 2004. Appellant filed reply to the show-cause notice and explained how the input services is related to their manufacturing operations and requested for dropping the deman ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the sister concern of the appellant. He further submitted that the regulatory work is part and parcel of manufacturing activity insofar as pharmaceutical industry is concerned and the Mumbai office of the appellant which is carrying out the manufacturing related regulatory function, is an extended arm of the Bangalore manufacturing unit and hence, credit cannot be denied. He also submitted that the appellants have submitted the details of the persons employed in Mumbai office and they are basically technical engineers closely connected with the manufacturing operations. He further submitted that the sister concern Apotex Pharmachem (India) Pvt. Ltd. has not employed even a single person at the Mumbai office of the appellant. To this extent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vable property situated at Mumbai houses the corporate office of the appellant and there is no allegation to the effect that these premises are used by sister companies and it is only in the Order-in-Original that the adjudicating authority took the view that premises is also used by the sister companies which in fact is not a correct finding. He further submitted that this Tribunal in the appellant's own case vide Final Order No.21411/2016 dated 16.12.2016 has allowed the CENVAT credit of service tax paid on rent of Mumbai premises. 4.1 The learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the following decisions: i. National Engineering Industries Ltd. vs. CCE-I: 2013 (30) STR 511 ii. Jaypee Rewa Cement plant vs. CCE: 2009 (7) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es at manufacturing activity. Review and approval all commercial production, process changes through change control form by regulatory affairs. He also submitted that about 15 engineers of the appellant are working in Mumbai premises to carry out the above referred pre-manufacturing related activities and all these activities are directly in relation to their manufacturing activity and fall in the definition of input service as contained in Rule 2(1) of Cenvat Credit Rules 2004. In support of this he relied upon the decision in the case of National Engineering Industries Ltd. Vs. CCE, Jaipur (supra) wherein it has been observed that cenvat credit of service tax relating to rental of immovable property, security guard appointed at the reside ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
