GOLDEN TOBACCO LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appeal and stay application are directed against Order -in -Appeal No. YDB (28)/MV/2012, dated 18 -5 -2012 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai.

(2.) The appellant M/s. Golden Tobacco Ltd. are manufacturers of cigarette and availed CENVAT credit of service tax paid on various services under 64 invoices and credit availed is in respect of 14 categories of services. The services are certification of the factory work, payment made to advocates for legal services related to manufacturing activities, repair and maintenance of the factory, audit and accounting of the factory, packaging services for export purposes, advertisement expenses, quality upgradation and so on. The department was of the view that the appellant is not entitled for CENVAT credit on the service tax paid on the services and issued a show -cause notice dated 6 -4 -2011 in respect of CENVAT credit of Rs. 1,51,611/ - availed in March, 2010. The only allegation in the show is that the services on which credit has been availed are not "input service" as defined in CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The said show -cause notice was adjudicated by the original authority vide order dated 9 -11 -2011 but there is no discussion made in the said order as to how the services have no nexus with the manufacturing activity undertaken by the appellant. On the contrary, the appellant has categorized the services received and also explained the nexus between the service received and the manufacturing activity undertaken. There is no rebuttal of the claims of the appellant by the original authority. The original authority merely confirmed the demand mentioned in the show -cause notice along with interest thereon and also imposed a penalty of Rs. 2,000/ -. The appellant preferred an appeal before the lower appellate authority who, without discussing the nature of the services and their nexus with the manufacturing activity undertaken by the appellant, mechanically dismissed the appeal and hence the appellant is before me.

(3.) THE learned AR appearing for the Revenue reiterates the findings of the lower authorities.