Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Panchmahal Steel Limited vs Commissioner Of Central Excise & S.T., ... on 26 February, 2015
CUSTOMS EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, West Zonal Bench, Ahmedabad Appeal No. : E/10520/2014 Application No. : E/Early Hearing/16118/2014 (Arising out of OIA-VAD-EXCUS-002-APP-594-595/13-14 dated 31.12.2013 Passed by Commissioner (Appeals) Central Excise & Service Tax, Customs, Vadodara ) M/s. Panchmahal Steel Limited : Appellant (s) VERSUS Commissioner of Central Excise & S.T., Vadodara : Respondent (s)
Represented by :
For Appellant (s) : Shri Willingdon Christian, Advocate For Respondent (s) : Shri J. Nair, Authorised Representative For approval and signature :
Mr. P.K. Das, Hon'ble Member (Judicial) 1 Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? No 2 Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of 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? Seen 4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities? Yes CORAM :
Mr. P.K. Das, Hon'ble Member (Judicial) Date of Hearing / Decision : 26.02.2015 ORDER No. A/10184 / 2015 Dated 26.02.2015 Per : Mr. P.K. Das;
Applicant filed this application for early hearing of the appeal. After hearing both the sides, I find that the appeal may be decided at this stage.
2. On perusal of the records, I find that the issue involved in this case is eligibility of CENVAT credit on input services, mainly on Outdoor Catering service, in terms of the provisions of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. It is seen that the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CCE, Nagpur vs. Ultratech Cement Limited 2010 (20) STR 577 (Bom.) held that Outdoor Caterers services used in the canteen would be eligible for availing CENVAT credit. It is also held that credit would not be admissible to manufacturers on part of the service tax portion borne by the workers. At this stage, learned Advocate for the appellant submits that they have not recovered any amount from the workers.
3. In view of the above discussion, the impugned order is modified to the extent that the appellant is not eligible to avail credit to the portion of service tax borne by the workers. Application for early hearing of appeal gets disposed of. The appeal filed by the appellant is allowed.
(Dictated and pronounced in the Court) (P.K. Das) Member (Judicial) ..KL 2