CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH
BANGALORE


Appeal(s) Involved:

E/27434/2013-SM, E/27435/2013-SM, E/27436/2013-SM 



[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 231-234/2013 CE  dated 10/05/2013 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise , (Appeals-I) BANGALORE]

For approval and signature:

HON'BLE SHRI S.S GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER
1
Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
No
2
Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
Yes
3
Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?
Seen
4
Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
Yes

M/s Koeleman India (P) Ltd
No. 98, NH-4, Narasapur Bypass,
Kolar Taluk & Distt
Appellant(s)




Versus



Commissioner of Central Excise ,Customs and Service Tax BANGALORE-I 
 POST BOX NO 5400...CR BUILDINGS,
BANGALORE, - 560001
KARNATAKA
Respondent(s)

Appearance:

Mr. G.P. Leonce, Consultant For the Appellant Mr. Pakshi Rajan A.R.

For the Respondent Date of Hearing: 15/09/2016 Date of Decision: 15/09/2016 CORAM:

HON'BLE SHRI S.S GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER Final Order No. 20827-20829/ 2016 Per : S.S GARG All these three appeals are directed against impugned order-in-appeal No. 231-234/2013 dated 10.05.2013. Since all the three appeals are directed against a common impugned order, they are disposed of by this common order.

2. The issue involved in these three appeals is whether the appellant is entitled for refund of CENVAT credit of service tax paid on Banking charges, installation of effluent treatment plant and insurance service.

3. Lower authorities have denied the refund claim on the ground that these services do not have any nexus with the manufacturing activity of the appellant.

4. Heard both sides and perused the records.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that in respect of bank charges the issue is squarely covered in their favour by the following judgements. i. Wipro Ltd Vs UOI [2013(29)STR 545 (Del) ii. CCE Surat-II Vs Vishal Malleables Ltd [2013(287)ELT 234 (Tri-Ahmd) iii. Meghmani Dyes & Intermediates Ltd Vs CCE Ahmadabad [2011(22) STR 54(Tri-Ahmd). As regards effluent treatment plant, learned counsel for the appellant submits that it is mandatory to have the effluent treatment plant under the Pollution Control Act and it is an essential input service. He further submits that the appellant is not pressing for insurance service.

6. Learned A.R. reiterated the findings in the impugned order.

7. On a careful consideration of the submissions made by both sides and on perusal of the records, I find that as regards banking charges, the issue is squarely covered in favour of the appellant by the judgements cited supra. As regards the effluent treatment plant, since it is mandatory to have the effluent treatment plant under Pollution Control Act, I hold that it is an essential input service. Accordingly refund claim in respect of these two service is allowed. As the appellant is not pressing for refund in respect of insurance service, the same is not allowed.

8. All the three appeals are disposed of in above terms.

(Order pronounced in open court) S.S GARG JUDICIAL MEMBER pnr...