Case Law Details
M/s. Tradex Polymers Pvt. Ltd. is a registered service provider and is a Del credere consignment agent and during the course of advertising and publicizing the product the assessee enlisted the services of a mandap keeper which is an input service. This confirms to the definition of input service as defined under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. I find the ratio of the decision in the case of M/s. Coca Cola India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE Pune-3 reported in 2009 (15) STR 657 (Banglore)
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
WEST ZONAL BENCH, AHMEDABAD
COURT NO.II
Appeal No. ST/02/2011
Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.338/2010(STC)/MMC/Commr.(A)/Ahd, Dated: 1.10.2010
Passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Ahmedabad
Date of Decision: 1.4.2011
M/s TRADEX POLYMERS PVT. LTD.
Vs
CCE, AHMEDABAD
CORAM: P Babu, Member (T)
Per: P Babu:
This is an appeal filed by M/s. Tradex Polymers Pvt. Ltd., Ellis Bridge, Ahmedabad, engaged in providing taxable services as business auxiliary services. They availed credit of mandap keeper services amounting to Rs.2,261/-. The original adjudicating authority dropped the proceedings initiated against them and allowed the input credit holding that the assessee was entitled to input service credit under the provisions of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. However, Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal filed by the department holding that in the absence of a clear nexus between input and output service, the appeal merits acceptance. She also found that the appellant had not enclosed invoice providing that the mandap keeper service was utilized for promoting business of Del creder agent.
2. The appellant’s contention was that the show cause notice was time barred as the same has been issued after a period of more than two years. They also submitted that the issue is no more res-integra and that the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of M/s. Coca Cola India Pvt. Ltd. and Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. ABB Ltd. holding that such activity should be considered as input service and eligible for input credit on the duty paid. They also relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Japee Rewa Plant Vs. CCE Bhopal reported in 2009 (16) STR 707 . I heard the contentions raised by learned JDR, Shri R.S. Srova, who reiterated the earlier contentions. I have gone through the findings of Commissioner (Appeals). On going through the facts of the case, I find that M/s. Tradex Polymers Pvt. Ltd. is a registered service provider and is a Del credere consignment agent and during the course of advertising and publicizing the product the assessee enlisted the services of a mandap keeper which is an input service. This confirms to the definition of input service as defined under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. I find the ratio of the decision in the case of M/s. Coca Cola India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE Pune-3 reported in 2009 (15) STR 657 (Banglore) . I also find that in the show cause itself the demand was raised on the basis of invoice issued by Bhagwati Banquets & Hotel Ltd., Ahmedabad (invoice No.979, dated 17.08.05) which is an adequate proof of providing mandap keeper service.
3. In view of the discussions above, I find that the OIA is not sustainable. The appeal is allowed.
(Pronounced in Court)
