Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Tata Steel Limited vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 15 November, 2010
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI Application No. E/S/920/2010 in Appeal No. E/795/2010 (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. VSK/3 & 4 M-V/2010 dated 15.1.2010 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) Central Excise, Mumbai-I For approval and signature: Honble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) ============================================================
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see : No
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 Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : Yes
of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental : Yes authorities?
============================================================= M/s. Tata Steel Limited :
Appellants VS Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-V Respondents Appearance Ms. Kanupriya Bhargawa, Advocate for Appellants Shri B.P.Pereira JDR Authorized Representative CORAM:
Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) Date of decision : 15/11/2010 ORDER NO.
Per : Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) The short issue involved in this matter is the denial of input service credit on the service like Custom House Agent, Cargo Handling Charges, Export Documentation and Repair and maintenance of the motor vehicle.
2. As the issue has been already settled by the Bombay High Court in the case of Ultra Tech Cement Ltd., reported in 2010 TIOL 745 HC-MUM., the appeal can be disposed of at this stage. Accordingly, after waiving the pre-deposit of the entire demand in the impugned order, the appeal is also taken up for disposal as agreed by both the sides.
3. In the case of Ultra Tech Cement Ltd. (supra) the Honble High Court has held that the assessee is entitled for input service credit of the services availed by the assessee, which are availed in course of their business and manufacturing activity. The contention of the appellant in this case is that all the above mentioned services are availed by them to export the goods which were manufactured by them. Accordingly, on relying decision of Ultra Tech Cement Ltd. (supra), I hold that in this case also the appellant is entitled to avail the input service credit on the above mentioned services as same has been availed by the appellant as a manufacturer in the course of their business activity.
4. With these observations, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed. Stay applications is also disposed of the above manner.
(Dictated in court) (Ashok Jindal) Member (Judicial) Sm 2