Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Commissioner Of Central Excise vs Manglam Cement Ltd on 30 June, 2016
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI
PRINCIPAL BENCH, COURT NO. IV
Excise Appeal No. 916 of 2009
[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No. 46 (DK) /CE/JPR-I/2009 dated 4.3.2009 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals I), Jaipur ]
For approval and signature:
Hon'ble Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial)
Hon'ble Mr. V Padmanabhan, Member (Technical)
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
Commissioner of Central Excise Appellant
Jaipur I
Vs.
Manglam Cement Ltd. Respondent
Appearance:
Shri R K Mishra, AR for the Appellants Ms. Rinky Arora, Advocate for the Respondent CORAM: Hon'ble Ms Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) Hon'ble Mr. V Padmanabhan, Member (Technical) Date of Hearing/ Decision: 30.06.2016 FINAL ORDER NO . 52384/2016 Per Archana Wadhwa Being aggrieved with the order passed by Commissioner (Appeals) vide which he has allowed the credit of Service Tax paid on the outdoor catering services, clearing and forwarding services and outward transportation from the factory gate to the customers, Revenue has filed the present appeal. 2, We find that all three disputed issues stand decided in favour of the assessee. As regard the outdoor catering services, the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of CCE vs. GTC Ltd. [2008 (12) ELT 468 (Tri-LB)] has held in favour of the assessee. The said decision was before the Honble High Court of Bombay and was affirmed in the case of CCE Nagpur vs. Ultratech Cement Ltd. [2010 (260) ELT 369 (Bom)]. As regards the clearing and forwarding services, the Honble Gujarat High Court in the case of CCE, Ahmedabad vs Cadila Healthcare Ltd. 2013 (30) STR 3 (Guj) has held that clearing and forwarding agent services are cenvatable. Similarly, in the case of outward transportation of the goods from the factory of the customer place has been held to be cenvatable by the Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of ABB Ltd. confirmed by Honble Karnataka High Court reported as CCE vs ABB Ltd. [2011 (23) STR 97 (Kar)] .
3. Inasmuch as the issues are decided, we find no merits in the appeal of Revenue. The same is accordingly rejected.
(dictated and pronounced in the open court )
( Archana Wadhwa ) Member(Judicial)
( V Padmanabhan)
Member(Technical)
ss
2