COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, DELHI-III Vs. S.K.H. METALS LTD.
LAWS(CE)-2015-3-101
CUSTOMS EXCISE AND GOLD(CONTROL) APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Decided on March 03,2015

Commissioner Of Central Excise, Delhi -Iii Appellant
VERSUS
S.K.H. Metals Ltd. Respondents




JUDGEMENT

ASHOK JINDAL,MEMBER (J) - (1.)Revenue is in appeal against the impugned order wherein the learned Commissioner (Appeals), after examining the issue allowed the import service credit on freight inward, telecommunication, security services, insurance, consultancy and courier services, held that these are admissible services as per Rule 2(1) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The facts of the case are that the show cause notice was issued on the premise that services mentioned hereinabove in para 1 are not input services as mentioned under Rule 2(1) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The adjudication took place. The adjudicating authority denied the Cenvat credit and confirmed the demand of duty along with interest and also penalties imposed on the respondents. Said order was challenged before the learned Commissioner (Appeals) who after examining the records and relied on case laws, held that respondents are entitled to take Cenvat credit and held that same are input services as per Rule 2(1) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Against the said order, Revenue is before me.
(2.)Learned AR submits that the respondents with regard to freight inward services has not produced any documentary evidence to show that this service has been availed by the respondent for initial transportation of the inputs, therefore is not entitled to take Cenvat credit. For remaining services, he relied on case law namely;
(1) MSIL v/s. CCE, Delhi III [ : 2009 (240) E.L.T. 641 (S.C)]

(2) Ellora Times Ltd. v/s. CCE [ : 2009 (235) E.L.T. 661 (Tri.)]

(3) CCE v/s. Manikgarh Cement [ : 2010 (20) S.T.R. 456 (Bom.)]

(4) Vikram Ispat v/s. CCE : [2009 -TIOL -997 -CESTAT -Mum : 2009 (16) S.T.R. 195 (Tribunal) : 2012 (277) E.L.T. 218 (Tribunal)]

(5) Chemplast Sanmar v/s. CCE : [2010 -TIOL -180 -CESTAT -Mum : 2010 (17) S.T.R. 253 (Tribunal) : 2010 (250) E.L.T. 46 (Tribunal); and

(6) Telco Construction Co. Ltd. v/s. CCE [ECS July -Sept 2012].

(3.)Heard the parties. Considered the submissions. The issue of availment of Cenvat credit on input services under Rule 2(1) of CCR, 2004 came up before the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in Ultratech Cement [ : 2010 (260) E.L.T. 369 (Bom.)], wherein the Hon'ble High Court has held that any services availed by a manufacturer of excisable goods in the course of their business, is entitled to take Cenvat credit. The case law relied upon by the learned AR are prior to the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Ultratech Cement. Therefore, same are not relevant to the facts of the case as Hon'ble High Court held that the appellant is entitled to take Cenvat credit. Admittedly, in this case also respondent has availed the input service credit on services mentioned hereinabove in para 1 being the manufacture of excisable goods in the course of their business. Therefore, they are entitled to take Cenvat credit. Therefore, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. Consequently, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.
(Dictated and pronounced in the open Court)

;


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