Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Cce, Ltu, Chennai vs M/S. Eid Parry (India) Ltd on 6 July, 2010
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH AT CHENNAI
Appeal No. ST/412/2009
(Arising out of Order-in-Revision No. LTUC/122/2009-(C) dated 12.5.2009 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, LTU, Chennai)
For approval and signature:
Honble Ms. Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice-President
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 Member wishes to see the fair copy of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
CCE, LTU, Chennai Appellant
Vs.
M/s. EID Parry (India) Ltd. Respondents
Appearance Shri T.H. Rao, SDR for the Appellant Shri S. Muthuvenkataraman, Advocate for the Respondents CORAM Honble Ms. Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice-President Date of Hearing: 06.07.2010 Date of Decision: 06.07.2010 Final Order No. ____________ The issue in dispute in the present appeal is as to whether the activity of the assessees of the storage of buffer stock of sugar as per the Governments direction and releasing of the same as and when fresh stock to be kept as buffer stock arises and for which the Government pays some amount to the assessees amounts to provision of storage and warehousing service by the assessee.
2. On hearing both sides I find that the issue stands settled by the decision of the Tribunal in Nawanshahr Cooperative Sugar Mills Vs. CCE, Jallandhar/Chandgarh 2008 (12) STR 176. Following the ratio of the above order which is applicable on all fours to the facts of the present case, I uphold the impugned order and reject the appeal. (Dictated and pronounced in open court) (JYOTI BALASUNDARAM) Vice-President Rex ??
??
??
??
2