CCL Products India Ltd Versus CCT, Guntur – GST
Central Excise
2018 (11) TMI 814 – CESTAT HYDERABAD – 2019 (369) E.L.T. 780 (Tri. – Hyd.)
CESTAT HYDERABAD – AT
Dated:- 3-10-2018
E/30739/2018 – A/31270/2018
Central Excise
Mr. P.K. CHOUDHARY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
Shri Karan Talwar, Advocate for the Appellant.
Shri V.R. Pavan Kumar, Superintendent/AR for the Respondent.
ORDER
1. The appeal is filed by the appellant against Order-in-Appeal No.GUNEXCUS-000-APP-232-17-18 dated 15.03.2018.
2. The facts of the case in brief are that the appellant is a 100% EOU and is engaged in the manufacture of Instant/Soluble Coffee classifiable under Chapter 21 of the first schedule to the Central Excise Tariff, 1985. In the course of its regular business operation, the appellant is availing Cenvat Credit on various inputs, capital goods and input services. The appellant has availed “product recall liability insurance” for its goods manufactured at its facility for the period from
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
penalty under Rule 15(1) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. On appeal, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant/assessee and hence, the present appeal before the Tribunal.
3. Ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant company submits that the services of “product liability insurance” and “product recall liability insurance” are in relation to manufacturing and are availed before clearing of goods from the factory. It is his submission that they have paid the premium for “product liability insurance” and “product recall liability insurance” before clearance of final product from the factory gate. The premium paid for the insurance is forming part of the cost of final product and products covered under the “product liability insurance” and “product recall liability insurance” are attractive to the distributors of the appellant and hence helps in increasing the marketability of the products. It is further submitted that “product liability insuranc
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
onsumer Protection Act, 1986, Legal Metrology Act, 2009, etc., and it is essential for the business of the appellant that the risks are protected through insurance. It is further submitted that “product liability insurance” and “product recall liability insurance” are continuous policies covering risks arising in relation to the manufacture of final products and accordingly, the insurance services fall under the ambit of input services and the appellant had rightly availed credit of the same. The learned advocate relied upon various case laws in support of his submissions.
4. Learned Departmental Representative reiterates the orders of the lower authorities.
5. Heard both sides and perused the appeal records.
6. I find that the issue that arises for consideration is whether the appellant is eligible for credit of the service tax paid on “product liability insurance” and “product recall liability insurance”. The department has denied the same on the ground that it is a post manufactu
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =