9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 815X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ading No.9406 and 7308 respectively of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appellant avails cenvat facility in respect of central excise duty paid on the inputs and service tax on the input services. During the period August 2009 to March 2013, the appellant had availed cenvat credit of service tax paid on security services, which were utilized within the head office, located away from the factory and also in the residential premises of the Managing Director and Directors. Taking of cenvat credit on such service was disputed by the department on the ground that such service has no nexus with the manufacturing business undertaken by the appellant and thus, such service should not fall within the scope and ambit of Rule 2 (l) of the Cenv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lly finding place in Rule 3, the services utilized by the appellant in the places located outside the factory, should be available for cenvat benefit. He further submits that security service is finding place in the inclusive part of the definition of input service and accordingly, denial of cenvat benefit of such service by the authorities below is not in conformity with the cenvat statute. In support of the above submissions, the learned Advocate cited the following decisions rendered by the Hon'ble High Court and the Tribunal:- (i) CCE, Meerut-II vs. Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Ltd. - 2011 (23) STR 268 (Tri.-Del.); (ii) CST, Bangalore vs. Jubilant Biosys Ltd. - 2016 (42) STR 729 (Tri.-Bang.); (iii) mPortal India Wireless Solutions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inal product will be eligible for the cenvat benefit, if such goods were used "within the factory of manufacture of final product". Whereas, the said rule provides that in case of input service, receipt of such service should be by the manufacturer of final product. On plain reading of the provisions of Rule 3 of the Rules, it transpires that receipt of input service should not be confined to the factory alone and the same can be extended to other premises, belonging to the manufacturer. Since the activities undertaken in the head office of the appellant is in context with the manufacturing activities performed in the factory and the services availed therein are in relation to the manufacturing activity, the cenvat benefit in respect of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ial premises, but such availed credit had not been utilized for payment of Central Excise duty on removal of the final products. Since the appellant had sufficient balance in its cenvat account, it cannot be said that there is loss of revenue to the Government exchequer and for that purpose, Revenue has to be compensated by way of charging interest. Thus, interest demand cannot be confirmed against the appellant. Further, there is no element of fraud, collusion, suppression etc. on the part of the appellant in defrauding the Government revenue, by availing ineligible cenvat credit. Hence, imposition of penalty also is not proper and justified. 8. In view of the foregoing discussion and analysis, the impugned order is set aside and the appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
