Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Vijaya Fireworks Industries vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 12 April, 2016
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH AT CHENNAI
Appeal No.E/42203/2013
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.208-211/2013 dated 31.7.2013 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Madurai]
Vijaya Fireworks Industries
Appellant
Versus
Commissioner of Central Excise,
Tirunelveli Respondent
Appearance:
None For the Appellant Shri B. Balamurugan, AC (AR) For the Respondent CORAM:
Honble Shri D.N. Panda, Judicial Member Date of hearing/decision :12.04.2016 FINAL ORDER No.40613/2016 None present for the appellant. Assistance of Mr.Karthikeyan, learned Advocate has been taken. So also, the Revenue's assistance has been considered for disposal of the appeal on merit.
2. It is the transit insurance covering the risk over the goods in the course of transport that has suffered service tax was claimed by the appellant as cenvat credit thereof. That is denied by the adjudicating authority. This Bench has decided that place of removal can be construed on the facts and circumstances of each case and appropriate guideline has been given in the Final Order No.40444/2016 dt. 14.3.2016 in the case of SKD Lakshmanan Firework Industries Vs CCE Tirunelveli [Appeal No.E/42200/2013].
3. Since there are certain directions in the above said order and also conditions prescribed therein, it is necessary that learned adjudicating authority shall examine whether the outward freight service element has satisfied the above condition. If that is affirmatively answered, the service tax paid on transit insurance shall also enjoy cenvat credit. As a result, appeal is remanded to the adjudicating authority to dispose of the matter in the manner directed above after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellant.
4. At this juncture, Ld. D.R says that in a similar issue, the matter has also been remanded to the adjudicating authority and that is pending thereat. Therefore, this appeal may also go to the same authority for analogous hearing and common disposal.
5. For the prayer of ld. DR as above, it would be better for the department to dispose both the matters in the manner indicated above.
6. Normally, Tribunal does not remand the matter for the sake of disposal of the appeal. In the present case, in absence of the evidence as to availing of the transit insurance service and for no finding of integral connection thereof to the manufacture or output service, this recourse has been adopted. So also adjudicating authority had no opportunity to go through the order of the Tribunal aforesaid.
(Dictated and pronounced in open court) (D.N. PANDA) JUDICIAL MEMBER gs 3