Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Commissioner Of Central Excise vs M/S Lao More Biscuits Pvt Ltd on 15 May, 2015
CUSTOMS EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, West Zonal Bench, Ahmedabad *****
Appeal No. : E/60/2010 [ Arising out of OIA-351/2009-AHD-II-CE/CMC/COMMR-A-/AHD dtd 9.10.2009 Passed by Commissioner of Central Excise-AHMEDABAD-II ] Commissioner of Central Excise-
AHMEDABAD-II - Appellant(s)
Vs
M/s Lao More Biscuits Pvt Ltd - Respondent (s)
Represented by :
For Assessee : None
For Revenue : Shri G P Thomas, Authorised Representative
For approval and signature :
Mr. P.K. Das, Hon'ble Member (Judicial)
1
Whether Press Reporter 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 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 CORAM :
Mr. P.K. Das, Hon'ble Member (Judicial) Date of Hearing / Decision : 15/5/2015 ORDER No. A/10871 / 2015 dtd 15/5/2015 Per : Mr.P.K. Das, None appears on behalf of the respondent. There is no application for adjudication.
2. After hearing the Learned Authorised Representative for the Revenue and on perusal of the records, I find that the respondent was a job worker, engaged in the manufacture of Biscuits, from the raw material supplied by Parle Products Pvt Ltd as per agreement. The dispute relates to the admissibility of cenvat credit for payment of Service Tax on Outward and Inward Freight GTA Service during the period April 2005 November 2005. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demand and recovery of cenvat credit alongwith interest and imposed penalty. By the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the adjudication order and allowed the appeal filed by the respondent.
3. The Learned Authorised Representative for the Revenue submits that the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ABB Ltd vs CCE&ST, Bangalore 2009(15)STR.23(Ban.LB) is not applicable in this case as the respondent is a job worker. It is submitted that the definition of the input service upto the place of removal would be applicable only for the manufacturer. He relied upon the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Ujgar Prints Etc., Vs. UOI 1989(39)ELT.493(SC). He also relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Kohinoor Biscuit Products Vs. CCE, Noida, [2015.37.STR.567 (Tri. Del.)] as upheld by the Honble Allahabad High Court as reported in 2015(38)STR.J124 (Tri. All.).
4. I find that the Tribunal on the identical issue in the case of Kohinoor Biscuit Products (supra) held that goods cleared from the job worker premises to the principal manufacturers depot and the cenvat credit on the service tax paid on the GTA services availed for transportation of the goods from the factory to the manufacturer to the depot of the Parle Biscuits has been correctly denied and cenvat credit demand has been upheld alongwith interest.
5. In view of the above discussions, the impugned order is modified to the extent the respondent is not eligible to avail cenvat credit on GTA Services in respect of the supply of finished goods on the depots, cannot be treated as place of removal for the manufacturer, unless the sales are on FOR destination basis and the demand would be quantified accordingly. The appeal filed by the Revenue is disposed of on the above terms.
(Dictated and pronounced in the Court) (P.K. Das) Member (Judicial) swami ??
??
??
??
2