Mirc Electronics Ltd. v. Commissioner Central Goods and Service Tax-Bhiwandi

CESTAT17 Sept 2026E/87863/2019

Download

Case summary

From the record, as published by the registry

No order text is published upstream for this record. The document itself carries the full text.

This is one of 1,952 CESTAT Excise Appeal cases decided by the CESTAT in 2026.

Filed as

CESTAT Excise Appeal 2026

Mirc Electronics Ltd. vs Commissioner Central Goods and Service Tax-Bhiwandi — CESTAT (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶23

therefore, fall under the ambit of ‘sales promotion’ which is expressly included in the definition of ‘input service’. With regard to ‘Detention Charges’, learned Advocate submitted that such charges relate to storage of imported goods in the warehouses situated at Docks or Airports, beyond the grace period; since such charges were paid in respect of import of raw material, used in the manufacturing process, the same should be considered as input service. Learned Advocate submitted that the ‘insurance premium’ towards various policies were paid for insuring the cargo, factory building and plant & machinery installed in the factory premises. In this context, she has submitted a certificate dated 12.05.2026 issued by the practicing Chartered Accountant firm, certifying that the insurance premium paid by them were not for any personal benefit or gain of the employees and the same were in relation to equipment/machinery etc. installed in the factory. As regards the ‘Membership Fees’ paid by the appellants, it is the submission of the learned Advocate that the appellants had availed CENVAT credit on membership fees for admission into various associations/federations to enable them to participate in various exhibitions, sales promotion activities, which help them in procuring raw materials at competitive rates and promote their manufacture of final products. Thus, it was contended that such service has the direct nexus with the manufacture and sale of the excisable goods. With regard to the ‘Conveyance charges’ (Renta-Cab service), learned Advocate fairly admits that no CENVAT credit is permissible on such services and the appellants had also reversed the CENVAT credit availed on rent-a-cab service. With regard to ‘Staff Welfare expenses’, she submitted that as per Factories Act, 1948 providing certain facilities to the staff are statutory in nature and under such statutory obligation, the appellants had incurred such expenses including payment of service tax and thus, the benefit of CENVAT credit should be available to them.

Mirc Electronics Ltd. v. Commissioner Central Goods and Service Tax-Bhiwandi

Case summary

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Howrah Mills Company Ltd. vs Howrah Commissionerate

Get&d India Ltd. vs Ltu Chennai

Lotte India Corporation Limited vs Cce Chennai-ii

Lotte India Corporation Limited vs Cce Chennai-Ii

Mirc Electronics Ltd. v. Commissioner Central Goods and Service Tax-Bhiwandi

Case summary

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Howrah Mills Company Ltd. vs Howrah Commissionerate

Get&d India Ltd. vs Ltu Chennai

Lotte India Corporation Limited vs Cce Chennai-ii

Lotte India Corporation Limited vs Cce Chennai-Ii

Celebrity Fashions Limited vs Chennai-Iv

Commissioner of Cgst & Central Excise-Pune-I vs Honewell Automation India Limited

Bbsr Commissionerate vs Meena Zarda Udyog Pvt. Ltd.

Ms Celebrity Fashions Ltd. vs Commissioner of Gst&Cce(Chennai outer)