Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Commissioners Of Central Excise vs Echjay Industries Pvt Ltd on 23 October, 2015
In The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal West Zonal Bench At Ahmedabad ****
Appeal No : E/725/2012 (Arising out of OIA-340/2012/COMMR-A-/RBT/RAJ Dated 15.06.2012 passed by Commissioner (Appeals) of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax-RAJKOT) Commissioners of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax-RAJKOT : Appellant (s) Vs Echjay Industries Pvt Ltd : Respondent (s) Represented by:
For Appellant (s) : Shri T. K. Sikdar, Authorised Representative For Respondent (s): Shri R. Subramanya, Advocate For approval and signature:
Mr. P.K. Das, Honble Member (Judicial)
1.
Whether Press Reporters 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 the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
No
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, HONBLE MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Date of Hearing/Decision: 23.10.2015 Order No. A/11548 / 2015 Dated 23.10.2015 Per: P.K. Das Revenue filed this appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), whereby the adjudication order was set-aside.
2. After hearing both the sides and on perusal of the records, I find that the Respondent availed and utilized the service tax paid on GTA service during the period April 2005 to January 2007. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed demand of CENVAT credit alongwith interest and imposed penalty. Commissioner (Appeals) set-aside the adjudication order, following the decision of the Honble Karnataka High Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax Bangalore vs. ABB Ltd., Vadodara [2011-TIOL-395-HC- KAR-ST].
3. On perusal of the grounds of the appeal filed by the Revenue, it is stated that the Revenue has challenged the order of the High Court before the Supreme Court, which is still pending. As the order of Honble High Court was not set-aside by the Honble Supreme Court, there is no reason to interfere the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). Accordingly, the appeal filed by the Revenue is rejected.
(Dictated & Pronounced in open Court) (P.K. Das) Member (Judicial) Govind..
2