Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 2]

Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal

M/S. Tamil Nadu Newsprint And Papers Ltd vs Cce, Trichy on 11 November, 2009

        

 

IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX 
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH, CHENNAI

 
S/177/06, S/204/07, E/679/07 & E/404/08

 
(Arising out of Order in Original No. 4/06 dated 19.05.2006, Order in Original No. 10/07 dated 27.06.2007, Order in Original No. 8/07 dated 26.06.2007 & Order in Originall No. 2/08 dated 11.06.2008  passed by the Commissioner of  Central Excise, (Appeals),  Trichy).

For approval and signature	

Honble Dr. CHITTARANJAN SATAPATHY, Technical Member
Honble 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 Honble Member wishes to see the fair  	:      
       copy of the  Order.

4.    Whether order is to be circulated to the		 	:
       Departmental Authorities?  _________________________________________________________

M/s.  Tamil Nadu Newsprint and Papers Ltd.	:	Appellant
 
		 		Vs.

 CCE, Trichy						:	Respondent 

Appearance Shri S. Muthu Venkataraman, Adv., for the appellant Shri V.V. Hariharan, JCDR, for the respondent CORAM Dr. CHITTARANJAN SATAPATHY, Technical Member Shri P.K. DAS, Judicial Member Date of hearing : 11.11.2009 Date of decision : 11.11.2009 Final ORDER No._____________ Per: Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy Heard both sides. The appellants have manufactured both exempted and dutiable goods. The dispute in all these four appeals relate to availment of credit of tax on input services. It is admitted by both sides that in the first two cases, the adjudicating Commissioner has ordered for reversal of the entire credit of service tax for the impugned services and in respect of the other two appeals, the adjudicating Commissioner has ordered for payment of 10% of the value of the exempted goods.

2. After hearing both sides and perusal of case records, we find that the impugned orders are unreasonable and the demands on the appellants are far in excess of the credit of service tax in respect of services used in the exempted goods. Hence, all the four impugned orders are set aside and with the consent of both sides, the matter is remanded to the original authority for fresh decision. He shall evolve a method to calculate the proportionate amount of service tax credit relating to the exempted goods in consultation with the appellants and thereafter the appellants shall reverse such proportionate credit.

3. All the four appeals are remanded for fresh decision in the above terms. In the circumstances of the case, where the method of calculation is uncertain, and the application of the Rule is unclear, the penalties imposed are set aside.

            (Order dictated and pronounced in the open Court)


						      					                      
      (P.K. DAS)		              (Dr. CHITTARANJAN SATAPATHY)              
JUDICIAL MEMBER		                   TECHNICAL MEMBER                  


		   
BB






2