Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Dcm Shriram Consolidated Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 2 April, 2014
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI
PRINCIPAL BENCH, COURT NO. III
Excise Appeal No. 3184 of 2010-EX [SM]
[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No. 329-331(DKV)/CE/JPR-I/2010 dated 6.07.2010 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Jaipur ]
For approval and signature:
Honble Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial)
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?
No
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. DCM Shriram Consolidated Ltd. Appellants
Vs.
Commissioner of Central Excise, Respondent
Jaipur I Appearance:
Shri Hemant Bajaj, Advocate for the Appellants Shri R L Meena, AR for the Respondent Date of Hearing /decision: 2.04.2014 ORDER NO. FO/ 51439 /2014- (SM) Per Archana Wadhwa:
After hearing both sides, I find that the dispute in the present appeal relates to the availment of inputs credit in respect of service tax paid on mining, survey and map makings services availed in the appellants mines located away from the factory premises, for excavation of lignite.
2. The original adjudicating authority has disallowed the same on the ground that same being away from the factory gate are not covered by the definition of input services whereas the Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal on the ground that power generation is separate activity and the services used for such power generation facilities can not be held to be input services .
3. Learned advocate appearing for the appellant has relied upon the Supreme Court decision in the case of Vikram Cement vs. CCE, Indore [2006 (197) ELT 145 (SC)] as also Madras High Court decision in the case of Deepak Fertilizers & Petrochemicals Corpn. Ltd. vs. CCE, Belapur [2013-TIOL-212-HC-Mum-CX]. I further find that the appellant has placed on record the evidence showing that the amount in question were captive mines, having been specifically allocated to them but the lower authorities have not verified the said aspect.
4. As such, I would prefer to set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to original adjudicating authority for fresh adjudication, in the light of law declared by various decisions to be relied upon by the appellant, as also after verification of the factual aspects.
5. The appeal is allowed by way of remand.
(Dictated & pronounced in the open Court )
( Archana Wadhwa ) Member(Judicial)
ss
??
??
??
??
2