Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... vs M/S.Hyderabad Industries Ltd on 12 November, 2009
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH AT CHENNAI
Appeal No.E/403/2008
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.44/2008 (M-II) dated 29.05.2008 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Chennai]
For approval and signature:
Honble Ms.JYOTI BALASUNDARAM, Vice-President
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 the Member wishes to see the fair copy of
the Order? :
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental
Authorities? :
Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai
Appellant
Versus
M/s.Hyderabad Industries Ltd.
Respondents
Appearance:
Ms.Indira Sisupal, JDR Ms. Radhika Chandra Sekhar, Adv. For the Appellants For the Respondent CORAM:
Honble Ms.Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice-President Date of hearing : 12.11.2009 Date of decision : 12.11.2009 Final Order No.____________ The issue in dispute as to whether CENVAT credit is admissible on Tour Operators Service and Travels. The period in dispute is June, 2006 to March, 2007.
2. I have heard both sides. There is no dispute that the Tour Operators Service and Travel Services are used for picking up and dropping the staff of the respondents to the factory. In the light of the above factual position, the ratio of the Tribunal decision in Commissioner of Central Excise, Nasik Vs Cable Corporation of India Ltd [2008-TIOL-1180-CESTAT-MUM], Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur-II Vs J.J. Cement Works [2009-TIOL-411-CESTAT-Del] and Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai Vs Thirumalai Chemicals Ltd. [2009-TIOL-1739-CESTAT-MAD], holding that rent-a-cab services used for transporting employees to and from the place of work is admissible, is squarely attracted and following the ratio thereof, I agree with the respondents that such services are in, or in relation to the activities of business. I, therefore, uphold the impugned order and reject the appeal. (Dictated and pronounced in open court) (JYOTI BALASUNDARAM) VICE-PRESIDENT ksr 16-11-2009 ??
??
??
??
2