Essel Propack Ltd Versus CGST & CX, Thane
Central Excise
2018 (8) TMI 78 – CESTAT MUMBAI – TMI
CESTAT MUMBAI – AT
Dated:- 16-5-2018
Appeal No. E\/85320\/2018 – A\/86920\/2018
Central Excise
Mr. S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial)
\nShri Prasad Paranjape, Advocate for appellant
\nShri S.J. Sahu, Asst. Commr (AR) for respondent
\nORDER
\nPer: S.K. Mohanty
\nDenial of CENVAT Credit of service tax paid on the taxable services namely, pest control, telephone, repair and maintenance of air conditioner and export related services is the subject matter of the present dispute. The authorities below have denied CENVAT Credit to the appellant on the ground that the disputed services, by nature of their use\/participation for the intended pur<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n regard to telephone services, the contentions of the appellant were that such services were availed by the appellant for effective communication and negotiation between company employees with the suppliers\/ customers, and thus, such service has been used\/utilised in relation to the manufacturing activity of the appellant. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n or consumption of its employees. Since the disputed services were used in or in relation to the manufacture of the final product and having nexus with the ultimate final product manufactured by the appellant, CENVAT Credit on the disputed services cannot be denied by the department. I find that in identical situation, this Tribunal in the above referred decisions has allowed CENVAT benefit on the pest control services and telephone charges for the employees, holding that the same merits consideration as input service. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Essel Propack Ltd Versus CGST & CX, ThaneCentral Excise2018 (8) TMI 78 – CESTAT MUMBAI – TMICESTAT MUMBAI – ATDated:- 16-5-2018Appeal No. E\/85320\/2018 – A\/86920\/2018Central ExciseMr. S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial) Shri Prasad Paranjape, Advocate for appellant Shri S.J. Sahu, Asst. Commr (AR) for respondent ORDER Per: S.K. Mohanty Denial of CENVAT Credit of service tax … Continue reading “Essel Propack Ltd Versus CGST & CX, Thane”<\/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-12967","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12967","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=12967"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12967\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=12967"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=12967"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=12967"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n3.3 As regards the repair and maintenance of air conditioners, the appellant contended that the air conditioners were installed in the factory for ensuring smooth functioning of the machines installed therein. Thus, the same should be considered as input service. In support of said contentions, the appellant has relied on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise v. Hollister Medical Indi<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n5. In view of the above, I do not find any merits in the impugned order. Accordingly, after setting aside the same, I allow the appeal in favour of the appellant.
\n(Order dictated in Court)
Case laws, Decisions, Judgemen<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n