Signify Innovations India Limited Vs Commissioner of Central Excise And Service Tax (CESTAT Chandigarh)
The CESTAT Chandigarh decided three connected appeals arising from orders confirming demands of CENVAT credit, interest and penalties for different periods between 01.06.2009 and 30.06.2017. The impugned orders had upheld demands raised under Rule 14 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, together with interest and penalties under Rule 15 of the CENVAT Credit Rules and Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act. Since the issue involved in all three appeals was identical, the Tribunal heard and decided them together.
The appellant was engaged in the manufacture of CFL Lamps, CFL Burners, FL Tubes and Tungsten Filaments and held a centralised service tax registration through its Head Office at Chennai, which was also registered as an Input Service Distributor (ISD). During the relevant period, the appellant received various input services, including Goods Transport Agency, Business Support Services, Information Technology Software Service, Technical Testing and Analysis Services, Legal Services, Management Maintenance or Repair Service, Manpower Supply Services and Sea Freight. Service tax on these services was discharged under the reverse charge mechanism, and the appellant availed CENVAT credit on the strength of GAR-7 challans.
