M\/s Aristo Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise – Surat
Central Excise
2018 (3) TMI 691 – CESTAT AHMEDABAD – TMI
CESTAT AHMEDABAD – AT
Dated:- 26-2-2018
Appeal No. E\/10257\/2018 – ORDER No. A\/10475 \/ 2018
Central Excise
Dr. D. M. Misra, Hon'ble Member (Judicial)
\nFor the Appellant : Shri J. Surti, Advocate
\nFor the Respondent : Shri S. N. Gohil, AR
\nORDER
\nPer : Dr. D. M. Misra
\nHeard both sides.
\n2. This is an appeal filed against the order-in-appeal No. CCESA-SRT\/(APPEALS)\/PS-71\/2017-18 dated 30.10.2017 passed by Commissioner (Appeals), CGST &Central Excise-Surat.
\n3. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the appellant are engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods falling under Chapter 30 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1984. They had availed CENVAT credit of service tax paid by the service provider in relation to the input service viz. Man-power supply service which were used in or in relatio<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n hence it is immaterial whether the entire amount of service tax was paid by service tax provider or by the appellant while availing the credit on the same. He submits that the amount of service tax paid by the service provider cannot be considered as a deposit as held by authorities below in considering the eligibility of credit in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise Ahmedabad – III vs Nahar Granites Ltd. 2014 (305) ELT 9(Guj.) It is his contention that once the service tax was paid and the invoices issued indicating the payment of such service tax, the appellant are eligible to take credit of the service tax paid as the said services are used in or in relation to manufacture of finished goods. Also he has referred to the judgment of this Tribunal on similar issue in the case of Sunil Steels vs CCE 2017 (48) STR 268 (Tri-Del.). = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n aid by the service provider and later recovered from the appellant by indicating the same in the invoice. I find that the amount which the service provider paid whether to be consider as a deposit or service tax for deciding the eligibility of credit has been more or less settled by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in Nahar Granites Ltd. (supra), their lordships observed as under: = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n t partake the character of excise duty. However, when the department did not dispute the classification of such manufacturer, accepted the declarations and duties, Cenvat credit on such duty cannot be declined to the purchaser of the goods who otherwise fulfilled all conditions tor availing Cenvat credit thereof. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" M\/s Aristo Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise – SuratCentral Excise2018 (3) TMI 691 – CESTAT AHMEDABAD – TMICESTAT AHMEDABAD – ATDated:- 26-2-2018Appeal No. E\/10257\/2018 – ORDER No. A\/10475 \/ 2018Central ExciseDr. D. M. Misra, Hon'ble Member (Judicial) For the Appellant : Shri J. Surti, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri … Continue reading “M\/s Aristo Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise – Surat”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-10936","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10936","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=10936"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10936\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=10936"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=10936"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=10936"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n5. He has vehemently argued that the service tax liability apportioned in th<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n “7. Rule 3 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 allows a manufacturer or producer of final product or a provider of taxable service to take Cenvat credit of the duty of excise specified in the First Scheduler to the Excise Tariff Act. Rule 4 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 lays down the conditions for allowing Cenvat credit. Sub-rule (1) thereof provides that Cenvat credit in respect of inputs may be taken immediately on receipt of the inputs in the factory of the manufacturer or in the premises of the provider of output service. Proviso to sub-rule (1) puts certain limitations on such immediate availabili<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n 9. Case is substantially similar to one before the Supreme Court in case of MDS Switchgear Ltd. (supra). In the said case, the Tribunal while accepting the department s allegation of inflation of the value of intermediate goods to load the assessable value, observed that if the department was of the opinion that the value of the final product was depressed, it could have charged the original manufacturer unit in under-invoicing their product. This was however, not done. Valuation was duly approved and the payment of duty was also accepted. The Tribunal further observed that We find absolutely no substance in the attempt of the learned Commissioner to convert a part of the du<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n