PARLE INTERNATIONAL Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, VAPI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CENVAT credit of Service Tax paid on courier services amounting to Rs. 4,393/ - during the period from April 2009 to September 2009 has been denied and the credit availed has been demanded along with interest and equal amount of has been imposed as penalty.

(2.) NO one appeared on behalf of the appellant nor is there request for adjournment. However, taking note of the fact that the amount is only Rs. 4,393/ - towards Service Tax plus interest and equal amount as penalty, I consider it appropriate that the matter itself can be finally decided since the issue involved is already covered by the previous decisions. Accordingly, the requirement of pre -deposit is waived and appeal itself is taken for consideration.

(3.) THE Commissioner (Appeals) in his impugned order has confirmed the demand and penalty on the ground that the delay of 23 days cannot be condoned and the courier services does not have any nexus with the manufacture and clearance of the goods manufactured by the appellant. I have gone through the Order -in -Appeal and heard the ld. AR for the Department. The ld. AR reiterates the submissions of Commissioner (Appeals). I find that the Commissioner (Appeals) has denied the condonation of delay on the ground that the appellant did not provide any evidence to show that the officer who was handling the work was suffering from back -ache and was undergoing treatment and submit that the reasons given by the appellant are not convincing. The appellants have submitted that they had produced medical certificate before Commissioner (Appeals), but he has not considered the same. Further, it was also submitted that for previous period from March 2005 to March 2009, the issue stand decided in their favour by the Commissioner (Appeals) and therefore, no company would deliberately avoid filing the appeal and risk rejection of the same because of delay. I find that the delay was only 23 days and medical certificate is available in the papers submitted in memorandum of appeal. Taking note of the fact that a copy of medical certificate has been produced, I am unable to understand the order rejecting the appeal on the ground of delay without going to merits. In this case, the courier service has been used for sending samples to the customers and for sending official documents/correspondence with the Head Office. The ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has observed that sending samples is not relatable to manufacture directly or indirectly. I am really surprised to see this observation. On receiving the samples and sending the same to the customers, he places orders. Therefore, it is definitely an activity relatable to manufacture. Without a customer, how the manufacture and clearance can take place is also not understandable. Further, the correspondence from factory to Head Office is also relatable to manufacture and clearance. The ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has not even mentioned why the decision of Honble Bombay High Court in the case of Coca Cola India Pvt. Ltd. - 2009 (242) E.L.T. 168 = 2009 (15) S.T.R. 657 (Bom.), is not applicable to the facts of the case, even though while summarizing the submissions, it was mentioned that the appellant had relied upon the decision of Coca Cola India Pvt. Ltd. (supra). Further, this Tribunal in the case of CCE, Guntur v. CCL Products (India) Ltd. - 2009 (16) S.T.R. 305 (Tri. -Bang.), has also taken the view that Service Tax credit on courier service is admissible. Further, I also find that Honble Bombay High Court in Coca Cola India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and Honble Karnataka High Court in the case of ABB Ltd. [2011 (23) S.T.R. 97 (Kar.)] have taken a view that the credit of Service Tax in respect of input services relatable to manufacture is admissible.