M\/s Hindustan Unilever Ltd. Versus Commissioner of CGST & C. Ex., Kolkata South
Central Excise
2018 (7) TMI 157 – CESTAT KOLKATA – TMI
CESTAT KOLKATA – AT
Dated:- 19-3-2018
Ex. Appeal No.75315\/18 – FO\/A\/76034\/2018
Central Excise
SHRI P. K. CHOUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER
\nShri H. P. Kanade, Adv. for the Appellant (s)
\nShri S. S. Chattopadhyay, Supdt. (A.R.) for the Respondent (s)
\nORDER
\nPer Shri P. K. Choudhary:
\nThis is an appeal filed by the Appellant against the Order-in- Appeal No.93\/Kol.V\/2017 dated 30.10.2017 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) of CGST (Appeals I), C.Ex., Kolkata South.
\n2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of soaps and OSAA, glycerine and DFA classifiable under chapters 15, 34 and 38 of the first schedule to CETA. They entered into an agreement with M\/s I.M.C. Ltd. with regard to Oil Pipeline Supply Management Services termed as 'Pipeline utilisation charges' to oil tanks. There is a c<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n records. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n agreement, it is clear that the said charges are related to the service provided by the service provider. The appellant contended that “inward transportation of inputs” has been specifically covered under the inclusive definition of input service under Rule 2(l) of CCR, 2004. It is noticed that the service rendered by M\/s IMC Ltd. is in respect of manufacturing of excisable goods. Therefore, the denial of credit is not justified. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" M\/s Hindustan Unilever Ltd. Versus Commissioner of CGST & C. Ex., Kolkata SouthCentral Excise2018 (7) TMI 157 – CESTAT KOLKATA – TMICESTAT KOLKATA – ATDated:- 19-3-2018Ex. Appeal No.75315\/18 – FO\/A\/76034\/2018Central ExciseSHRI P. K. CHOUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Shri H. P. Kanade, Adv. for the Appellant (s) Shri S. S. Chattopadhyay, Supdt. (A.R.) for the Respondent (s) … Continue reading “M\/s Hindustan Unilever Ltd. Versus Commissioner of CGST & C. Ex., Kolkata South”<\/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-12477","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12477","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=12477"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12477\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=12477"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=12477"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=12477"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n4. The Commissioner (Appeals) observed that in this case the appellant availed the cenvat credit of service tax paid for services which were in the nature of penalty and cannot be treated as input service as defined under Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant drew the attention of the Bench to the agreement dated 10 March 2002 between the appellant and M\/s IMC Ltd. in respect of transfer of liquid cargo from M\/s IMC Ltd.,s terminal. It is seen that there is a clause for pipeline utilisation charges. For the proper appreciation of the case, the relevant portion of the said agreement is reproduced:
\n “6. The Minimum Guaranteed quantity will be 20000 MT of oil pumped through pipelines (both from Company's terminal\/N.S.Dock i.e ex-ship to Party's Factory annum. For any shortfall below 20000 MT per annum “Party” shall pay to “Company” @ Rs. 55\/- per MT for such shortfall. After an initial period of 5 years, the amount paya<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n6. The Tribunal in the case of CCE, Mumbai v. GKW Ltd. [2014 (308) ELT 759 (Tri.-Mum)] observed that excise authorities having jurisdiction over recipient of inputs cannot reopen classification adopted by the officer having jurisdiction over input supplier. The relevant portion of the said decision is reproduced:
\n “5. I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the Revenue.
\n 5.1 It is true that in the case of Technoweld Industries (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court had held that the process of drawing wires from wire rods not amount to manufactur<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n