RALLIS INDIA LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL EXCISE & SERVICE TAX
CUSTOMS EXCISE AND GOLD(CONTROL) APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
RALLIS INDIA LTD.
Commissioner, Central Excise And Service Tax
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.)THIS appeal has been filed by the Appellant against OIA No. CCEA -SRT -II/SSP -223/u/s. 35A(3), dt. 07.01.2013, under which OIO No. 37/NKS -JC/DIV -II ANK/DEM/2011, dt. 21.09.2011 passed by the Adjudicating authority has been upheld.
(2.)The issue involved is regarding credit taken by the Appellant with respect to ISD invoices issued by the Head Office of the Appellant at Mumbai. First Appellate Authority has rejected the appeal filed by the Appellant on the ground that the services of Professional Fees & Brokerage for sale of Land availed by the Head Office of the Appellant and subsequently distributed to the Appellant's factory under Rule 4A of Service Tax Rules, 1994 does not qualify to be input services under Rule 2(1) of CENVAT Credit Rules 2004. Shri Vinay Kansara (Advocate) appearing on behalf of the Appellant argued that CENVAT Credit was taken by the Appellant on the strength of valid ISD invoices issued by Head Office of the Appellant situated at Mumbai and contained all the prescribed details. That credit is admissible on the invoices issued by ISD in terms of Rule 4A of Service Tax Rules, 1994. That the officers of Central Excise situated in Gujarat has no jurisdiction to raise demand with respect to ISD invoice issued by their Head Office at Mumbai. That the only requirement for taking credit is that ISD invoice should be issued by the Head Office and should contain all the details as prescribed by the Rules. He relied upon the case law of CCE Vs. Godfrey Philips India Ltd. [ : 2009 (14) STR 375 ((Tri -Ahmd). It was his case that the Appellant's Headquarter is filing returns under Rule 9(10) of CENVAT Credit Rules 2004 on half yearly basis and that there head office has also been audited periodically by the officers Central Excise.
2.1 That on merits, it is the case of the Appellant that certain services were availed by the Headquarters of the Appellant with respect to certain land situated in Andhra Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh, which were in the names of M/s. Rallis India Ltd. only. That buying and selling of property in the name of M/s. Rallis India Ltd. is an activity in relation to business of the Appellant which was covered by the definition of definition of input service given in Rule 2(1) of CENVAT Credit Rules 2004. It was his case that the words activity in relation to business in Rule 2(1) were amended only w.e.f. 01.04.2011. It was strongly argued by the learned Advocate of the Appellant that the period involved in the present appeal is March 2008, which is before the date of amendment of Rule 2(1) of CENVAT Credit Rules 2004. He relied upon the case law of this Bench in the case of Cadmac Machinery Co. (P) Ltd. Vs. CCE Ahmedabad [2013 (31) STR (Tri -Ahmd)], where an activity in relation to valuation of property was considered to be an activity in relation to business and eligible for CENVAT Credit under Rule 2(1) of CENVAT Credit Rules 2004.
(3.)LEARNED Advocate appearing on behalf of the Appellant further argued that entire demand is time barred as all the details have been taken by the Department from the records maintained by the Appellant and that at the relevant time, services availed in relation to business of the Appellant was eligible for CENVAT Credit as per the Larger Bench judgment of CESTAT Bangalore in the case of ABB Ltd. [2009 -TIOL -830 -CESTAT -BANG -LB].
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.