CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI REGIONAL BENCH - COURT NO. I SERVICE TAX APPEAL No. 85672 of 2016 [Arising out of Order-in-Original No. 39-45/STC-V/SKD/15-16 dated 27.11.2015 passed by the Commissioner of Service Tax-V, Mumbai.]

PARLE Products Private Limited .… Appellants North Level Crossing, Vile Parle (East)

Mumbai – 400 057.

VERSUS Commissioner of Service Tax-V, Mumbai …. Respondent (Presently Mumbai West CGST & Central Excise Commissionerate)

BSNL Administrative Building, 6th Floor, D Wing Juhu Tara Road, Santacruz (West)

Mumbai – 400 054.

APPEARANCE:

Ms. Padmavati Patil, Advocate for the Appellants Ms. S.Varalakshmi, Authorized Representative for the Respondent CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. S.K. MOHANTY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

HON’BLE MR. M.M. PARTHIBAN, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

FINAL ORDER NO. A/86964/2025 Date of Hearing: 25.06.2025 Date of Decision: 25.06.2025 PER: M.M. PARTHIBAN This appeal has been filed by M/s PARLE Products Private Limited, Mumbai (herein after referred together as ‘the appellants’ for short) assailing the Order-in-Original No. 39-45/STC-V/SKD/15-16 dated 27.11.2015 (referred to, as ‘the impugned order’) passed by the Commissioner of Service Tax-V, Mumbai.

2. The appellants are presently located under the territorial jurisdiction of the Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Mumbai West, Mumbai in terms of appointment of officers, imposing the powers and jurisdiction of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST)/Central Tax Commissioners issued under Sections 3, 5 of the CGST Act, 2017 vide Notification No.02/2017-C.T. dated 19.6.2017 and Notification No. 13/2017-C.E. (N.T.) dated 09.06.2017 read with Trade Notice No.01/2017-Central Tax dated

21.07.2017 of Mumbai Zone-I, as amended, read with Section 174(2)(f) of the CGST Act, 2017.

3.1 Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the appellants manufacturer M/s PARLE Products Private Limited, Mumbai are engaged in manufacture of excisable goods viz., Biscuits, Confectionary etc., at various factories situated at Vile Parle, Mumbai; Bhuj in Gujarat; and Bangalore in Karnataka, and are individually registered with the Central Excise department. The appellants are also registered as provider of taxable services with the jurisdictional Service Tax authorities under the category of Business Auxiliary Services (BAS) and as person liable to pay tax for Goods Transport Agency (GTA) service. The appellants avail CENVAT credit of duty paid on inputs, capital goods and input services used for manufacture of final products and utilize the said credit for payment of duty on their final products.

3.2 The appellants are also getting some of their excisable goods manufactured by their own subsidiary units such as Parle Biscuits Private Limited (PBPL, for short) situated at Bahadurgarh, Haryana; Neemrama, Rajasthan; Sitarganj, Uttaranchal; and Nashik, Khopoli in Maharashtra. These products are cleared on payment of applicable Central Excise duty on the basis Retail Sale Price (RSP) to their depots for further sale to retail customers, all over India. Since all their branded biscuits, confectionaries and chocolates etc., manufactured by the appellants, as well some of the products manufactured by their subsidiary units, bear common brand name such as Parle-G, Krack Jack, Monaco, Chox, Eclairs, for Biscuits; Melody; Eclairs for Chocolates, Orange Candy, Role-a-Cola, Parle-Lite, Mango Bite for Confectionaries, the department had interpreted that the advertisement and sales promotion expenses incurred by the appellants and sharing of it with their subsidiary unit, as provision of services under the taxable category of ‘Business Auxiliary Services’ (BAS) by the appellants to their subsidiary unit. On the above basis, the department had initiated show cause proceedings for recovery of service tax from the appellants. However, the appellants have contended that there was no services rendered by the appellants; and they had duly paid the service tax along with the invoice for th