CESTAT, BANGALORE BENCH
Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages (P.) Ltd.
Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax, Hyderabad
Final Order Nos. 73 & 74 of 2012
APPEAL NOS. ST/347 of 2009 AND E/314 of 2009
FEBRUARY 3, 2012
B.S.V. Murthy, Technical Member
The issue involved in the present appeals is eligibility or otherwise or of benefit of the CENVAT credit of the service tax paid on GTA service, tyre retreading service and shifting of household articles of employees. Revenue is in appeal against a decision in the impugned order taxing a view that credit, is admissible in respect of GTA services received by the appellants. The assessee is in appeal against the decision disallowing the benefit of CENVAT credit of service tax paid on transportation of household articles of employees and tyre retreading.
2. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that in their own case reported in Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages (P.) Ltd. v. CCE&ST  28 STT 326 (Bang.-Cestat), this Tribunal had taken the view that CENVAT credit of service tax paid for shifting of household goods of employees is not admissible and since the issue is covered against the assessee, he is not making any submissions. As regards tyre retreading service, he submits that in the same decision cited above, Tribunal had taken the view that vehicle maintenance is an ‘input service’. Therefore the credit of service tax paid on tyre retreading has also to be allowed since retreading of tyres is nothing but maintenance of vehicle.
3. Learned AR on behalf of the Revenue submits in view of the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of CCE & ST v. ABB Ltd.32 STT 141 (Kar.) and in view of the fact that the credit, of service tax was taken in this case prior to 01.04.2008 she is not contesting the same. As regards tyre retreading she submits that it cannot be called as maintenance of vehicles and tyre retreading is not done by authorized service station.
4.1 I have considered the submissions made by both the sides. As regards benefit, of credit of service tax with regard to GTA service, the issue is settled by the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of ABB Ltd. (supra) and therefore the appeal filed by the Revenue has to be rejected and accordingly is rejected.
4.2 As regards benefit of service tax paid for shifting of household goods of employees, as fairly submitted by the learned counsel for the assessee, the issue is covered against them by the decision of this Tribunal cited above and accordingly the demand for service tax is upheld. As regards tyre retreading service, I consider that it is part of vehicle maintenance and therefore the benefit of service tax credit has to be allowed. As already submitted by the learned counsel for the assessee, whether service tax credit is available in respect of vehicle maintenance has been decided by the Tribunal in their own case.
4.3 The demand for service tax in respect of shifting of household goods of employees had been decided against the appellants and therefore the assessee is liable to pay the service tax credit availed on this service with interest. As regards penalty, the penalty has already been set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order and in the Revenue’s appeal there is no challenge to this decision of the Commissioner (Appeals). Therefore, the question of penalty also does not arise. Both the appeals are declared in the above terms.