Back
2015 Supreme(Mad) 2295
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R. Sudhakar and K.B.K.VASUKI, JJ.
The Commissioner of Central Excise Chennai - Appellant
Vs.
M/s. Indian Furniture Products Ltd - Respondent
C.M.A. No. 2562 of 2010
Decided On : 03.07.2015
For Appellant : Mr. S. Xavier Felix
For Respondent: Notice served
The central legal point established in the judgment is the applicability of the monetary limit set by the Government's litigation policy in determining the maintainability of an appeal.
Headnote:
Service Tax Credit - Appeal against Tribunal's Order - Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 - Summary of Acts and Sections: Cenvat Credit Rules 2004, Section 11 A of CEA 1944 - The court discussed the appeal against the Tribunal's order regarding the credit of Service Tax paid on travels for transportation of staff and relied on the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 and Section 11 A of CEA 1944 in reaching its decision.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, Revenue, filed an appeal against the Tribunal's order rejecting their appeal. The case involved the credit of Service Tax paid on travels for transportation of staff and other services availed by the assessee.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appeal was not maintainable as per the monetary limit set by the litigation policy of the Government, and dismissed the appeal without going into the merits of the questions of law raised.
Issues: The issues involved the maintainability of the appeal filed by the appellant and the applicability of the monetary limit set by the Government's litigation policy.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the monetary limit set by the Government's litigation policy, which rendered the appeal not maintainable.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed as not maintainable in view of the monetary limit set by the Government's litigation policy.
R. Sudhakar, J.
Aggrieved by the order passed by the Tribunal in rejecting the appeal filed by it, the Revenue/appellant is before this Court by filing the present appeal. This appeal was admitted by this Court, on 23.12.2010, on the following substantial questions of law :
“ 1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in confirming the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 13.04.2009 holding that the credit of Service Tax paid on travels for transportaion of their Staff for pick up and drop from residence to factory be allowed ? and
2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in relying on the decision reported in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Nasik vs. Cable Corporation of India Ltd. -2008 (12) STR 598, and CCE, Jaipur – II vs. JK Cement Works – reported in (TIOL – 8411) which has been appealed and pending before the High Court ? “
2. The 1st respondent / assessee are manufacturers of Ready to Assemble Furniture falling under CHSH 9403 60 00 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and are having Central Excise Registration No: AAACZ0306PXM001. The assessee was availing Cenvat Credit including input Service Tax credit. The assessee had engaged various travels for transportation of their staff for pick up and drop from residences to the factory premises during the period from February 2006 to December 2006 and have availed input Service Tax credit to the tune of Rs. 92,901/-+ Education Cess Rs. 1,857/-. Similarly, the assessee had aviled input service tax credit to the extent of Rs. 64,077/-+ Education Cess of Rs. 1,281/-during the period from September 2006 to December 2006 on the bills of telephones ( attached to office) / Insurance policy (Health Insurance) / Group Personal Accident Charges paid. It appears that the services availed on the bills of Telephones (attached to the office) / Insurance Policy ( Health Insurance ) / Group Personal Accident were not connected with the manufacturing activities and the Service Tax credit availed as input service credit on the above services did not appear to be in order and appeared to be recoverable. Thus, a show cause notice was issued directing the assessee to show cause as to why an amount of Rs.1,60,116/-(service tax credit Rs.92,901/-) + 64077/-) + Edu. Cess ( i.e. 1857/-+ 1281/-) being the wrong availment of Service Tax Credit should not be recovered from them under Rule 14 of Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 read with Section 11 A of CEA 1944. After due process of law, the Order in Original No: 37 of 2007 dated 18.05.2007 came to be passed demanding a sum of Rs.1,60,116/-(service tax credit of Rs.92,901/-+ Rs. 64,077/-) Edu. Cess (i.e. 1,857/-+ 1281).
3. Challenging the said order, the assessee approached the Commissioner (Appeals). By his Order-in-Appeal No. 110/2009 dt. 13.04.2009, the Commissioner (Appeals) disposed of the appeal by allowing the credit of service tax paid to Travels for Transportation of their staff for pick up and drop from residence to the factory premises and on Telephone (attached to the office) charges and denied the credit taken onservice tax paid on Insurance Police (Health Insurance) / Group Personal Accident Charges.
4. Against the said order, the department preferred appeal to the Tribunal. Since the Tribunal rejected the appeal, the appellant/Department has preferred the present appeal.
5. In similar cases of this nature, the learned counsel appearing for the assessee raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the case of the appellant contending that the appellant ought not to have filed the appeal in view of the litigation policy of the Government issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Excise & Customs vide Instructions dated 20.10.2010 in F.No.390/Misc./163/2010-JC, wherein the following instruction has been issued:-
"5. The Board has decided that appeals in the Tribunal shall not be filed where the du
