TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 867X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r. Anil Choudhary, Member ( Judicial ) And Mr. Anil G. Shakkarwar, Member ( Technical ) Shri Tarun Gulati, Advocate Shri Nikhil Gupta, Advocate, for Appellant Shri Pawan Kumar Singh, Superintendent (AR), for Respondent ORDER Per Anil G. Shakkarwar The present appeals are filed by the appellant, M/s Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., against Orders-in-Original No. 15-18/COMM/NOIDA/2010-11 39/COMMISSIONER/NOIDA/2012-13 dated 21/12/2010 16/11/2012 respectively passed by Commissioner of Central Excise Customs, Noida. 2. Appeal No. E/701/2011 was allowed to be heard for early hearing through Misc. Order No. 70387/2016 dated 19/08/2016, wherein it was also ordered to tag Appeal No. E/55880/2013. Therefore, both ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ently, for the period from June, 2008 to May, 2009 a Show Cause Notice on the same line was issued on 06/07/2009, proposing recovery of Service tax credit of ₹ 1,28,83,144/- under Rule 14 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Subsequently, for the period from June, 2009 to October, 2009 another Show Cause Notice on the same line was issued on 10/05/2010 with a proposal to recover Service tax credit of ₹ 66,98,367/- under the same provision of Rule 14 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Subsequently, for the period from November, 2009 to September, 2010 a Show Cause Notice on similar line was issued on 10/11/2010 proposing recovery of Service tax credit of ₹ 70,05,198/-. The above stated four Show Cause Notices were adjudicated through O ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellant who has argued that as held by Hon ble Supreme Court in the Case of Union of India ORS. Versus Bombay Tyre International Ltd. reported at 1983 (14) E.L.T. 1896 (S.C.) the cost incurred towards providing warranty to the customers by the manufacturer is included in the assessable value of the goods manufactured by any manufacturer and that it is including the appellant. He has further submitted that it was held by this Tribunal in the case of Videocon Industries Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Aurangabad reported at 2016 (335) E.L.T. 778 (Tri. Mumbai) that since MRP includes warranty charges/warranty charges cannot be excluded from retail sale price for determination of assessable value over and above abatement made adm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is included in the assessable value. Therefore, warranty is related to manufacture. The Authorized Service Centers were providing service towards fulfillment of legal obligation of warranty. Therefore, the Service tax paid by the Authorized Service Centers was input service for the manufacture of goods manufactured by appellants. He has further relied on this Tribunal s Final Order Nos. A/388-389/2012-WZB/C-I(CSTB), dated 02/05/2012 in Appeal No. ST/43/2009 E/1742/2010-Mumbai in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Nashik Versus Mahindra Mahindra Ltd. reported at 2012 (28) S.T.R. 382 (Tri. Mumbai) wherein it has been held at Para 5.1 as follows:- 5.1 The first issue by the learned A.R. is that after sales service of the vehi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alue and therefore, these expenses incurred in the service are entitled for input service credit. 5. The ld. A.R. has supported the impugned Orders-in-Original. 6. We have gone through the rival contentions. We find force in the arguments put forward by ld. Counsel for the appellants. We also find through the precedent judgment in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Nashik Versus Mahindra Mahindra Ltd. reported at 2012 (28) S.T.R. 382 (Tri. Mumbai) wherein it was held that Service tax paid on the expenses incurred for providing warranty service were entitled for input service credit. Following the said final order, we allow these appeals and hold that the appellants shall be entitled for consequential reliefs, if any, in a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
