Back
CUSTOM EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MADRAS
VICE-PRESIDENT, MS. JYOTI BALASUNDARAM
Commissioner of Central Excise, Tirunelveli -Appellant
Versus
DCW Ltd. -Respondent
FINAL ORDER NO. 25/2011 MISC. ORDER NO. 2/2011 APPEAL NO. E/501/2010 CROSS OBJECTION NO. E/CO/68/2010
Decided On : 07-01-2011
C. Rangaraju
1. The Revenue is aggrieved by the extension of credit of service tax paid on passenger air fare (2) service tax paid on servicing charges and insurance charges of company vehicle (3) service tax paid on residential telephone lines of the staff of the assessee and (4) setting aside of penalty imposed under Rule 15 of the CENVAT Credit Rules.
2. Heard ld. SDR and perused the records — none appears for the respondents in spite of notice.
3. I find no legal infirmity in the finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) that the assessee is eligible to credit of service tax paid on air travel fare, if the air travel has been performed for the purpose of company business. It is not the case of the department that air travel was performed for the personal purposes of the officers of the manufacturing company. Therefore, credit has rightly been extended. As regards extension of credit of service tax paid on servicing charges and insurance charges of the company vehicle, in the light of Tribunal’s decision in CCE, Guntur v. CCL Products (India) Ltd. [2009 (16) S.T.R. 305], these charges are to be held as being in relation to the manufacture of final products and following the ratio of the above decision, I uphold the impugned order on this point. Coming to service tax paid on residential telephones of the staff, following the decision in the case of ITC Ltd. v. CCE, Salem [2009 (14) S.T.R. 847], and noting that it is not the case of the Revenue that telephone service was used for personal purposes of the officials of the assessee, I agree with the lower appellate authority to hold that credit is admissible.
4. In the result, I uphold the impugned order insofar as it relates to extending credit of service tax paid on passenger air fare, servicing charges and insurance charges of company vehicle, and residential telephone lines of the staff, and reject the appeal of the Revenue. The cross-objection is only in the nature of comments upon/reply to the Revenue’s appeal and is hence dismissed.
