Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Cce, Ludhiana vs M/S. Usha Martin Limited on 22 June, 2012
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
WEST BLOCK NO.II, R.K. PURAM,
NEW DELHI-110066
COURT NO. II
Central Excise Appeal No.704 of 2010-SM
[Arising out of Order-in-Review No. 15/Review/CE/LDH/2010 dated 18.3.2010 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise & Customs, Chandigarh]
Date of Hearing/decision: 22nd June, 2012
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, Ludhiana Appellant
Vs.
M/s. Usha Martin Limited Respondent
Present for the Appellant : Shri Bharat Bhushan, D.R. Present for the Respondent : Shri Rajesh Chhibber, Advocate Coram: Honble Shri D.N. Panda, Judicial Member;
FINAL ORDER NO. ________________ Per D.N. Panda:
Learned Counsel says that meaning of place of removal being extended to door step of the buyer following judgment of Honble High Court of Gujarat in the case of CCE & E vs. Parth Poly Wooven Pvt. Ltd., reported in 2012 (25) STR 4 (Gujarat) Revenues appeal fails today.
2. Revenue has no instruction to defend as to whether ratio laid down by Honble High Court of Gujarat in para 22 of Parth Poly Wooven Pvt. Ltd. (supra) holding that outward transportation service used by the manufacturer for transportation of finished goods from the place of removal up to the premises of purchaser is covered within the definition of input service provided in Rule 2 (l) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 has been stayed or overruled by higher Court. Accordingly, Revenues appeal is dismissed on such rational. (Dictated & pronounced in the Open Court.) (D.N. PANDA) JUDICIAL MEMBER RK 2