Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Cce, Chennai Iii vs M/S. Ultratech Cements Ltd on 10 April, 2014
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH, CHENNAI
E/675/2009
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 32/2009 (M-III) dated 27.8.2009 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Chennai)
For approval and signature:
Honble Shri P.K. Das, 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?
2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
3. Whether the Members wish to see the fair copy of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
CCE, Chennai III Appellant
Vs.
M/s. Ultratech Cements Ltd. Respondent
Appearance Shri M. Rammohan Rao, DC (AR), for the Appellant Shri R. Srinivasan, Consultant for the Respondent CORAM Honble Shri P.K. Das, Judicial Member Date of Hearing: 10.04.2014 Date of Decision: 10.04.2014 Final Order No. 40261/2014 Revenue filed this appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the adjudication order was set aside.
2. Heard both sides and perused the records.
3. The issue involved in this case is whether the respondents are eligible to avail CENVAT credit for the service tax paid on freight for outward transportation from the place of removal during the period March 2007. The issue is no longer res integra in view of the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. ABB Ltd. Vs. CCE, Bangalore 2009 (15) STR 23 (Tri. Bang) wherein it has been held that CENVAT credit is eligible on service tax paid on outward transportation service. This decision was upheld by the Honble Karnataka High Court in the case of CCE, Bangalore Vs. ABB Ltd. 2011 (23) STR 97 (Kar.) and the decision of the Honble Gujarat High Court in the case of CCE Vs. Parth Poly Wooven Pvt. Ltd. 2012 (25) STR 4 (Guj.) wherein it has been held that credit is eligible prior to 1.4.2008.
4. The learned AR for Revenue reiterates the grounds of the appeal and he strongly relied upon the decision of the Honble Calcutta High Court in the case of CCE Vs. Vesuvious India Ltd. 2013-TIOL-1038-HC-CAL.
5. I find that the Honble Calcutta High Court in the case of Vesuvious India Ltd. (supra) had also granted temporary stay. Respectfully following the decisions of the Honble Karnataka High Court in the case ABB Ltd. (supra) and Honble Gujarat High Court in the case of Parth Poly Wooven Pvt. Ltd. (supra), I do not find any infirmity in the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). Accordingly, the appeal filed by the Revenue is rejected. (Dictated and pronounced in open court) (P.K. Das) Judicial Member Rex 3