Decided on May 22,2015

The Gujarat Tea Depot. Co. Appellant
C.S.T. -Service Tax Respondents


H.K.THAKUR,J - (1.)THIS appeal has been filed by the appellant with respect to OIA No. AHM -SVTAX -000 -APP -355 to 356 -13 -14 dated 20.02.2014 passed by Commissioner (Appeals -IV) Ahmedabad. Issue involved in this case is whether appellant will be eligible to avail the benefit of Cenvat Credit under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 on Packaging Services, Security Services, Telephone Services & Chartered Account Services.
(2.)Shri S.J. Vyas (Advocate) appearing on behalf of the appellant argued that appellant firm is holding the brand name of Wagh Bakri tea. They are letting their brand name to others and are paying service tax on such royalty charged received under Intellectual Property Right Services. That as per the legal advice dated 15.10.2010 from Y.J. Trivedi & Co. Patents & Trade Marks Attorney & Advocate, Ahmedabad appellant is also required use the trade mark directly if it wants to retain right on the trade mark. That if the appellant does not use the trade mark but only grants permission to others than appellant may loose the ownership right of trade mark and may also be exposed to litigation. It was thus argued by the Learned Advocate that appellant also get the tea packed on its own account and avail the services of packers etc. for which credit has been disallowed. It was his case that these Services had to availed in order to protect on Brand Name/Trade Mark which is their output service as Intellectual Property Right. That other input services like Telephone Services & Chartered Account's Services & Security Services are availed both with respect to providing Intellectual Property Right Services as well as the activity of sales of their products got packed by the appellant and that such credit is admissible to them as per following case laws: - -
"(i) CCE Vadodara -II v. Siemens Healthcare Diagnostics Ltd. [ : 2014 (36) S.T.R. 192 (Tri Ahmd.)]

(ii) Castrol India Ltd. v. CCE Vapi [ : 2013 (30) S.T.R. 214 (Tri Ahmd.)]"

Learned Advocate also argued that as per Rule 6 (5) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 Cenvat Credit on Security Services was admissible in full if the services fall in the services specified in this Rule. That during the relevant time services failing under Section 65(105)(w) of Finance Act, 1994 to Security Services were covered under Rule 6 (5) and full credit was admissible even if Security Services were partly used for packing activities. That as the issue was contentious one appellant is also eligible for Section 80 benefit.

(3.)SHRI . J. Nair (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue argued that Packaging Services & Security Services are not in relation to providing of Intellectual Property Right Services, either directly or indirectly. Learned AR made the Bench go through para 10.3 & 10.4 of the order dated 20.02.2014 passed by the first appellate authority to argue that no provision of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 have been quoted by the Patent & Trade Marks Attorney, whose opinion is taken by appellant, under which it is obligatory that appellant should himself use the brand name by getting the impugned product manufactured/packed on his own account. That credit with respect to other Services is not admissible as the same are not used exclusively for providing output services i.e. Intellectual Property Right Services.

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.