Case Law Details
Balkrishna Industries Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise (CESTAT Delhi)
Service in question i.e. renting of immovable property is very well covered in ‘means’ as well as ‘includes’ clause of the definition of the input service as given under Rule 2 (I) of Cenvat Credit Rule, 2004. This Rule allows Cenvat Credit of all such services that are used in or in relation to the manufacture of finished goods. There is no denial on part of the Department that the premises taken on lease were used for the storage of raw-material required for the manufacture of tyres, the finished goods of the appellant. The service availed is definitely a service in relation to the manufacture of tyres. Also the Cenvat Credit of input services used for “storage upto the place of removal” and for “procurement of inputs” are admissible for Cenvat Credit. The godown of raw-material and the renting service in respect thereof is a service for storage upto place of removal. Hence the same is an input service. The Cenvat Credit whereof cannot be denied to the appellants. I draw my support from the decision of Hon‟ble High Court of Mumbai in the case of M/s. Deepak Fertilizers and Petrochemicals Corporation Ltd. reported in 2013 (32) S.T.R. 532 (Bom.) wherein it was held that input service used in relation to creation of storage facilities for inputs outside the premises was in relation to manufacture of goods. Therefore, Cenvat Credit was admissible for the same.
FULL TEXT OF THE CESTAT JUDGEMENT
The Order of Commissioner (Appeals) bearing No.151/2019 dated 14.05.2019 has been assailed vide the impugned appeal. The relevant factual matrix for the present appeal is that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of tyres. The Department observed that the appellant have wrongly filed Cenvat Credit of input services on ineligible services as that of renting of premises for business purposes. It was observed that the appellant has utilised Cenvat Credit of service tax on the basis of invoices issued by M/s. Grover Stainless Pvt. Ltd., Delhi for the services not availed exclusively by the appellants as the premises were taken on rent for being used as godown not only of the appellant but of all subsidiaries and associated companies of the appellant‟s group. The service provider leased the premises situated at A-1 RIICO, Industrial Area, Chopanki, Bhiwadi to M/s. Balkrishna Industries Ltd. through its Vice President Mr. Narender Kumar to utilise the premises for business purpose only but by all the subsidiaries and associated companies of the appellant. Accordingly, vide Show Cause Notice No.1285 dated 02.06.2017, it was alleged that the services in question do not fall within the purview of definition of input services and, therefore, the Cenvat Credit of Service Tax taken on the basis of the aforesaid invoices was proposed to be denied as being not admissible. Accordingly, an amount of Rs.17,02,715/- was proposed to be recovered from the appellants alongwith the interest and the proportionate penalties. The said proposal was confirmed initially vide the Order-in-Original No. 72/CE/2017-18 dated 28 March, 2018. The appeal thereof was dismissed vide the order under challenge dated 14.05.2019. Being aggrieved, the appellant is before this Tribunal.
2. I have heard Mr. Shaswat Arya, ld. Advocate for the appellant and Shri P.Juneja, ld. Authorised Representative for the Revenue.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
