Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Cce, Trichy vs M/S. Madras Cements Ltd on 30 August, 2010
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH AT CHENNAI
Appeal No. ST/259/2010
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 10/2010 dated 29.1.2010 passed by the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise (Appeals), Tiruchirappalli)
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, Trichy Appellant
Vs.
M/s. Madras Cements Ltd. Respondents
Appearance Shri T.H. Rao, SDR for the Appellant Shri R. Parthasarathy, Consultant for the Respondents CORAM Honble Ms. Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice-President Date of Hearing: 30.08.2010 Date of Decision: 30.08.2010 Final Order No. ____________ The Revenue is in appeal against the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) against the finding that the respondents are eligible to credit on repair and maintenance service etc. in their staff colony (residential colony of the assessees).
2. On hearing both sides I find that the issue stands settled against the assessees by the decision of the Tribunal in CCE, Nagpur Vs. Manikgarh Cement Works 2010 (8) STR 275 holding that nexus is required between the services and the manufacture or clearance of excisable goods before the benefit of CENVAT credit can be extended in respect of such services and the assessees had to establish any such nexus. The Tribunal relied on the apex Courts decision in Maruti Suzuki Ltd. Vs. Commissioner 2009 (240) ELT 641 (SC). Even in todays case the assessees has failed to establish any nexus between the services which are considered by them to be input service and manufacture or clearance of excisable goods and therefore the benefit of CENVAT credit in respect of such services cannot be allowed.
3. Following the ratio of the above decision, I set aside the impugned order insofar as it holds that CENVAT credit of service tax is admissible, but do not accede to the prayer of the Revenue for imposition of penalty, as admittedly this is case involving interpretation of provisions of law as held even in the Manikgarh Cement Work case cited supra as well as in the Maruti Suzuki case cited supra, and allow the appeal of the Revenue in part. (Dictated and pronounced in open court) (JYOTI BALASUNDARAM) Vice-President Rex ??
??
??
??
2