Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Cce, Delhi-Iii, Gurgaon vs M/S.Parle Biscuits Pvt.Ltd on 13 April, 2011
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
WEST BLOCK NO.II, R.K. PURAM, NEW DELHI-110066.
SINGLE MEMBER BENCH
Excise Appeal No.E/2288/2009 with E/CO/217/09
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.125/ANS/RTK/2009 dt.11.5.2009 passed by the CCE (Appeals), Delhi-III, Gurgaon)
For approval and signature:
Honble Mr.M.Veeraiyan, Member (Technical)
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 Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?
4
Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
CCE, Delhi-III, Gurgaon Appellants
Vs.
M/s.Parle Biscuits Pvt.Ltd. Respondent
Present for the Appellant: Shri Anil Khanna, SDR
Present for the Respondent: Shri R.K.Monga, Representative
Coram: Honble Mr.M.Veeraiyan, Member (Technical)
Date of Hearing/decision: 13.04.2011
ORDER NO._______________
PER: M.VEERAIYAN
This appeal is by the department against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) No.125/ANS/RTK/2009 dt.11.5.2009. The cross objection No.E/CO/217/09 is connected to this appeal and is merely in support of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), which is fully in favour of the respondents.
2. Heard both sides.
3. The relevant facts of the case are that the respondent is a manufacturer of biscuits; that they are recipient of GTA service; that as recipient they have paid service tax under TR-6 challan; that after paying service tax as recipient, they have taken the credit of the said amount under Cenvat Credit Rules. The original authority denied the credit holding that TR-6 challan under which the duty was paid is not prescribed document for the purpose of Rule 9 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 prior to 16.6.2005. Accordingly he disallowed the credit and demanded the amount of Rs.6,28,362/- and imposed equal amount as penalty. The Commissioner (Appeals) following the decision of the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Goa vs. Crompton Greaves Ltd. reported in 2008 (226) ELT 117 (Tri.-Mum.) set aside the order of the original authority.
4. Learned SDR reiterated the grounds of appeal. The representative of the assessee reiterated the grounds in the cross objection and relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd. vs. CCE, Meerut reported in 2010 (260) ELT ELT 106 (Tri.-Del.).
5. I have considered the submissions from both sides and perused the records. The respondent paid service tax on GTA service as recipient of service as deemed service provider. As the recipient of service, they have taken credit of the service tax paid by them. In other words, the respondent have played dual role as payer of service tax and recipient of said service. The Tribunal in the case of Crompton Greaves Ltd. cites supra held that even for the period prior to 16.6.2006, the document TR-6 challan under which the recipient paid service tax can be used as document for the purpose of taking credit. While it has been claimed by the department that they have filed appeal before the Honble High Court of Bombay, no submissions have been made that the said decision has been stayed or reversed by the Honble High Court. Further, the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd. cited supra also supports the case of the respondent. In view of the above, I hold that no valid ground has been advanced to interfere with the order of the Commissioner (Appeals).
6. In view of the above, the appeal filed by the department is dismissed. The cross objection is also disposed of.
Pronounced in the open court) (M.VEERAIYAN) MEMEBR (TECHNICAL) mk 3