Per Ms. Archana Wadhwa: The dispute in the present appeal relates to availability of Cenvat credit in respect of Telephone Services, Courier Services and Insurance Services.
2. The lower authorities have denied the credit on the ground that the said services cannot be held to be eligible cenvatable input services.
3. Learned advocate Shri Hemant Bajaj appearing for the appellant have placed the detailed chart on record including the precedent decision of the Tribunal which held that such services are cenvatable services.
4. For better appreciation the said chart is reproduced:- Particulars Purpose Amount judgments Telephone Provided to Employees for business purposes 10184/- CCE vs Ultratech Cement Ltd. 2010 (20) STR 589(Bom) CCE vs Excel Crop Care Pvt. Ltd. 2008 (12)STR 436 (Guj) CCE vs Lupin Ltd. 2012 (285) ELT 221 CCE vs J K Cement Works 2012 (277) ELT 194 J.K. Sugar Ltd. vs. CCE 2011 (270) ELT 225 Grasim Industries Ltd. vs CCE 2008(11) STR 168 Courier For the purpose of Business (dispatch of documents export papers, cheques etc.) 8673/- CCE vs CCL Products (India)Ltd 2009(16) STR 305 CCE vs Apar Industries Ltd. 2010(20)STR 624 CCE vs Apar Industries Ltd 2011 (23) STR J94 (Guj) CCE vs Topworth Steels Private Ltd. 2012(26) STR 420 CCE vs. Lupin Ltd. 2012(285) ELT 221 Tufropes pvt. Ltd. vs CCE 2012 (277) ELT 359 Meghmani Organics Ltd. vs CCE 2012 (26) STR 555 Insurance For insurance of goods laying in factory/ware house, transit insurance policy 22875/- U.G. Sugar & industries Ltd. 2013(287)ELT 355 Surani Ceramics Ltd. vs CCE 2012 (283) ELT 388 Monnet Ispat & Energy Ltd. 2010(19)STR 417 CCE vs Raipur Rotocast Ltd. 2010(18) STR 466 CCE vs CCL Products India Ltd. 2009(16) STR 305 CCE vs DCW Ltd. 2011 (22) STR 214 CCE vs Topworth Steels Private Ltd. 2012 (26) STR 420
5. Inasmuch as the issue are covered by the above referred decision, I set aside the impugned order and allow the consequential relief to the appellant. (Pronounce in the open Court) (Archana Wadhwa) Member (Judicial) Jyoti*
Comments