Case Law Details

Case Name : Royal Touch Aluminium (P.) Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Ahmedabad (CESTAT Ahmedabad)
Appeal Number : Order No. A/598/WZB/AHD/2012
Date of Judgement/Order : 27/04/2012
Related Assessment Year :
Courts : All CESTAT (607) CESTAT Ahmedabad (101)

CESTAT, AHMEDABAD BENCH

Royal Touch Aluminium (P.) Ltd.

Versus

Commissioner of Central Excise, Ahmedabad

Online GST Certification Course by TaxGuru & MSME- Click here to Join

ORDER NO. A/598/WZB/AHD/2012

APPEAL NO. E/1394 OF 2010

APRIL 27, 2012

ORDER

1. Credit of service tax paid on job worker services, cargo handling services and servicing of motor vehicles has been denied as inadmissible and appellants are in appeal.

2. Ld. Counsel on behalf of the appellants submitted that the availability of the cenvat credit in respect of duty paid by the job worker has already been considered by the Tribunal and in the case of Multi Organics (P.) Ltd. v. CCE [Order Nos. A/180-181/2010/SMB/C-IV, dated 31-3-2010]. It has been held that even though the job worker is entitled to exemption under Notification No. 8/2005-ST and if he has not availed to exemption, the service tax credit would be admissible to the person who availed the services of job worker. The present case is similar to the one decided by the Tribunal and therefore the credit availed by appellant is in order. As regards cargo handling services he drew my attention to the invoice issued by the CHA which clearly shows that the amount was paid by the CHA A.V. Joshi and Co. CFS on behalf of the appellant. The invoice shows the name of the forwarders and also mentions “A/c Royal Touch Aluminium Pvt Ltd.” There is no dispute that appellant has received the service and in view of the fact that the invoice clearly shows that the service was provided on account of the appellant and payment was made by A V Joshi And Co. as a pure agent, the credit has to be held as admissible. As regards the service tax paid on service tax of vehicles, the ld. counsel fairly submits that he is not pressing the eligibility since the amount involved is small. Therefore the credit of Rs. 7,610/- is to be disallowed as not claimed.

3. I have considered the submissions and I find myself in agreement with the arguments advanced by the ld. counsel. As stated by him, the issue of availability of cenvat credit of service tax paid by the job worker has been settled by the decision cited by the ld. counsel and reproduced above. As regards the credit of service tax paid on cargo handling services, in view of the fact that invoice clearly shows the name of the appellant and amount has been paid on their behalf and there is no dispute that service has been received by them, the credit is admissible.

4. In view of the above discussion, appeal is allowed excepting the amount of cenvat credit involved of servicing of motor vehicles amounting to Rs. 7,610/- and interest thereon.

More Under Excise Duty

Posted Under

Category : Excise Duty (4049)
Type : Judiciary (9971)
Tags : Cestat judgments (796)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *