Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Spic Ltd vs Cce, Chennai on 10 April, 2012
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH AT CHENNAI
E/S/6/2012 and E/6/2012
(Arising out of Order-in-Original No. 66/2011dated 17.11.2011 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai)
M/s. SPIC Ltd. Appellants
Vs.
CCE, Chennai Respondent
E/S/7/2012 and E/7/2012 (Arising out of Order-in-Original No. 29/2011 dated 24.10.2011 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai) M/s. IP Pins & Liners Ltd. Appellants Vs. CCE, Chennai Respondent E/S/8/2012 and E/9/2012 (Arising out of Order-in-Original No. 33/2011 dated 24.10.2011 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai) M/s. India Pistons Ltd., RBU Appellants Vs. CCE, Chennai Respondent Appearance Shri S. Muthuvenkataraman, Advocate for the Appellants Ms. Indira Sisupal, JDR for the Respondent CORAM Honble Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy, Technical Member Date of Hearing: 10.04.2012 Date of Decision: 10.04.2012 Stay Order Nos. _____________ Final Order Nos. ____________ Heard both sides.
2. The issue involved in these three appeals is whether the appellants are eligible to take credit of service tax paid on different services for the purpose of paying duty in respect of various goods manufactured by them. A batch of twenty appeals have been decided by this Bench remanding the cases to the original authority with the following observation on 28.10.2011 in the case of CST, Chennai Vs. M/s. Murugappa Management Services Ltd. & Others in Final Order Nos. 1170 1189/2011:-
4. Though the order of the Honble Bombay High Court in the case of Ultratech Cement (supra) has not taken note of the provisions of Section 37(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 limiting the rule making power to grant of credit in respect of tax paid on services used in or in relation to the manufacture of final excisable goods, in the absence of a stay order obtained against the same and in the absence of any contrary decisions either by the Honble jurisdictional High Court of Madras or the Honble Supreme Court, the order of the Honble Bombay High Court extending the credit of tax paid on all services used in relation to the business of manufacturing the final product is required to be followed. However, since this order of the Honble Bombay High Court was not before the authorities below when they decided the present cases, I set aside the impugned orders in respect of all these appeals and remand the matter to the respective original authorities for fresh decision applying the ratio laid down in the said order of the Honble Bombay High Court in the case of Ultratech Cement (supra).
5. All these 20 appeals are thus allowed by way of remand in the above terms. It goes without saying that this order is subject to the outcome of the decision of the Honble jurisdictional Madras High Court in the cases filed against the order of this Bench in the case of Sundaram Brake Linings (supra). The parties to these appeals will be at liberty to approach this Tribunal for further orders, if required, as a result of the outcome of the final order of the Honble Madras High court.
3. Following the ratio of the above decision of the Tribunal, the impugned orders in these cases are also set aside and the matters are remanded for fresh decision to the original authority (jurisdictional DC/AC) on the very same terms.
4. The stay petitions filed by the appellants also stand disposed of. (Dictated and pronounced in open court) (Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy) Technical Member Rex