E/25955/2013-SM, [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 470/2012-CE dated 26/12/2012 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise, BANGALORE-I (Appeal).]. Case: Ms. Ordyn Technologies Pvt. Ltd Vs The Commissioner Of Central Excise, Customs And Service Tax Bangalore-I. CEGAT (Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal) & CESTAT (Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal)
| Case Number | E/25955/2013-SM, [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 470/2012-CE dated 26/12/2012 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise, BANGALORE-I (Appeal).] |
| Counsel | For the Respondents: Shri N. Jagadish, AR |
| Judges | Shri S.S Garg, Judicial Member |
| Issue | Central Excise Tariff Act (CETA), 1985 |
| Judgement Date | May 16, 2017 |
| Court | CEGAT (Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal) & CESTAT (Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal) |
Order:
S.S Garg, (South Zonal Bench Bangalore)
-
The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 26.12.2012 whereby the Commissioner (A) has rejected the appeal of the appellant.
-
Briefly the facts of the present case are that appellants are engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods viz., Optical Transceivers and its Accessories falling under Chapter heading 85 of the Schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act (CETA), 1985 and are availing the facility of CENVAT Credit on inputs/input services along with capital goods. During the course of audit, the Departmental Officers observed that the appellant have availed input service tax credit of the amount paid as service tax to M/s. Synergy Business Solutions Pvt. Ltd. for maintenance of office accounts relating to the salary, PF, etc., of the employees of the appellant and on payment towards parking charges totaling to Rs.7,77,710/- for the period January 2008 to April 2010 based on services utilized by them in respect of their manufacturing unit. The input services utilized by the appellant and credit taken thereon are not in or in relation to manufacture and clearance of final products and the same are in contravention of provision of Rule 2 and 3 of CENVAT Credit Rules (CCR), 2004. On these allegations, a show-cause notice was issued and after following the due process, duty was confirmed along with interest and penalty. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (A) who also held that the input services viz., office accounts maintenance and parking charges do not fall in the definition of input service as provided under rule 2(l) of CCR as the same are not used in or in relation to manufacture and clearance of final products. Aggrieved by the said order...
To continue reading
Request your trial