Case Law Details

Case Name : Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages (P.) Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut-II (CESTAT Delhi)
Appeal Number : Final Order No. 895 OF 2012 SM(BR)
Date of Judgement/Order : 02/07/2012
Related Assessment Year :
Courts : All CESTAT (641) CESTAT Delhi (216)


Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages (P.) Ltd.


Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut-II


APPEAL NO. E/1394 OF 2010-SM

JULY 2, 2012


D.N. Panda, Judicial Member – In this appeal challenge of the appellant is against the issues in Sl. No. (i) to (iv) under following captions appearing at page 5-9 of the appeal order reading as under:

(i)  The invoices mentioned at SL. No. l to Sl. No. 6 in the Annexure ‘A’ do not have the address/incorrect address and also do not have the details of service provided.

(ii)  The invoices mentioned at Sl. No. 7 to Sl. No. 59 in the Annexure ‘A’ which have the address other than the address of the appellants.

(iii)  The invoices mentioned at Sl. No. 60 to Sl. No. 68 in the Annexure ‘A’ are related to transportation of staff by bus which was not taxable during the relevant period.

2. So far as the first issue is concerned, it is submission of ld. Counsel that the services availed were covered by invoice at page 52-57 of the appeal folder issued by different concerns. Authorities disallowed cenvat credit against such invoices on the ground that there was no supporting documents produced indicating address of service recipient and nature of service provided. But these documents indicate that services availed were for sales promotion and those were rightly availed by appellant. The appellant has earned service tax credit by its unit in Ghaziabad and those were distributed to its different units at Gurgaon.

3. So far as issue No. (ii) is concerned, similar is the reason of disallowance and she adopts same argument.

4. The third disallowance under issue No. (iii) was questioning the very nature of service whether to be treated as input service. She explains that those were for sales promotion and admissible.

5. The last objection related to transportation of staff by bus. According to appellant, staff of the company being stationed at a distant place from the place of work, they were provided transport facility. Accordingly, that shall be allowed to enjoy cenvat credit.

6. On the other hand Revenue submits that the appellate authority and also adjudicating authority examined all the 4 issues thoroghly and came to rational conclusion. When the recipient of service was not identifiable and that was other than the appellant, nature of service claimed to have been availed was not verifiable, credit was denied. Similarly finding no nexus of transportation of staff cenvat credit was not permissible under law. Mere filing of documents shall not ipso facto grant relief to claimant. The appellant having failed to bring nexus of the services claimed to be input service with the output or out put service, there was denial of cenvat credit made rightly.

7. Heard both sides and perused the record.

8. The appellant relies on various documents appearing at page 52-120 involving nearly 70 pages of appeal folder to buttress its claim of allowance of cenvat credit. Authority below ought to have tested each evidence to consider claim of the appellant. But after passing a long time from the date of show-cause notice and travelling of the matter to Tribunal it shall be an unproductive exercise if remand is made to re-examine each and every invoice and there shall be waste of time by public officer for a very small amount of disallowance of cenvat credit of Rs. 2,01,365/-. Therefore, without this order creating a precedent, the appeal is disposed by an overall assessment of the facts and circumstances of the present case. But it is not stated that cases of such nature need not be remanded since decision in each case shall depend on facts and circumstances of each case.

9. So far as of issue No. (i) to (iii) are concerned, it appears that due to variation in situs the appellant was primarily denied credit disregarding use of the services by different units of the appellant. In the course of hearing, it was explained that distantly located units of the appellant availed the benefit of cenvat credit in a distributed fashion which is otherwise guarded by Revenue by a centralised registration process. No doubt, mere submission of document shall not ipso facto grant relief to claimant. But once the facts and circumstances of the case bring out the identity of the receipient of service, denial of cenvat credit may cause absurdity and when claim is otherwise permissible. Added to this, the claimant appellant should not make multiple claim using same document in different locations to avail cenvat credit and ensure that no jeopardy is caused to Revenue. But such an allegation of multiple claim is absent in the present case.

10. Added to above 68 documents relied upon by the appellant as aforesaid were examined in compendium form without an elaborate exercise with the observation or findings on each page of the documents. That handicaps Tribunal to agree with Revenue on the allegation of inadmissibility of the claim. Therefore, the appellant shall succeed on issue No. (i), (ii) & (iii) aforesaid.

11. So far as issued No. (iv) is concerned, there is no evidence from the entire bunch of pages as aforesaid relied by appellant to prove that the transport facility was used either for manufacture or in relation to manufacture or providing output service. In absence of nexus and integrity, the appellant fails to succeed on the 4th issue.

12. In view of the aforesaid observations, inadmissibility of cenvat credit shall be recomputed by Id. Adjudicating Authority and the disallowance shall be reduced to the extent indicated above.

13. So far as the penalty is concerned, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, that shall not be leviable. But interest in accordance with law shall follow.

14. Appeal is partly allowed in the manner indicated above.

More Under Service Tax

Posted Under

Category : Service Tax (3320)
Type : Judiciary (10761)
Tags : Cestat judgments (830)

0 responses to “Cenvat credit otherwise permissible can’t be denied merely on technical grounds”

  1. samarth mal surana says:

    very useful information. in reality it is a great help and service to the profession. thanks

Leave a Reply

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