Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Commissioners Of Central Excise vs Essar Oil Ltd on 24 February, 2015
In The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal West Zonal Bench At Ahmedabad ****
Appeal No : E/757/2010 (Arising out of OIA-68/2010/COMMR-A-/RAJ DTD 19/02/2010 passed by Commissioner (Appeals) Central Excise, Service Tax & Customs, DAMAN) Commissioners of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax-RAJKOT : Appellant (s) Vs Essar Oil Ltd : Respondent (s) Represented by:
For Appellant (s) : Shri L. Tendupatra. AR For Respondent (s): None For approval and signature:
Mr. P.K. Das, Honble Member (Judicial)
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the No 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 No in any authoritative report or not?
3. Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of Seen the order?
4. Whether order is to be circulated to the Departmental Yes authorities?
CORAM:
MR. P.K. DAS, HONBLE MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Date of Hearing/Decision :24/02/2015 Order No. A/10396 / 2015 dated 24.02.2015 Per: P.K. Das Revenue filed by this appeal against the Order of the Commissioner (Appeals).
2. None appears on behalf of the respondent. After hearing the Learned Authorised Representative on behalf of the Revenue and on perusal of the records, I find the respondent were engaged in the manufacture of various excisable goods and availing Cenvat Credit under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. By the two show cause notices, it was proposed to deny the various input service credit and the adjudicating authority dropped the proceedings initiated Vide Show Cause Notice dated 18.01.2008 and 03.9.2008. Revenue filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). By the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal filed by the Revenue. Hence, the present appeal is filed by the Revenue.
3. On perusal of the impugned order, I find that the issue involved is denial of input service credit on Outdoor Catering Service, Rent-a-cab service and Travel Agent Service. Both the authority below allowed the credit following various decisions of the Tribunal. Revenue in their grounds of appeal stated that the Commissioner (Appeals) followed by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Mumbai V. M/s. GTC Industries Ltd. -2008 (12) S.T.R. 468 (Tribunal LB). It is contended that the decision of the Larger Bench in the case of GTC Industries (supra) does not appear to correct. In my considered view, the Single Member Bench of the Tribunal cannot make any observation on the correctness of the decision of Larger Bench of the Tribunal. In any event, I find force in the submission of the Learned Authorised Representative of the Revenue in respect of denial Cenvat Credit on Outdoor Catering Service, as per decision in the case of Commissioner Of Central Excise Nagpur V/s. Ultratech Cement Ltd. 2010 (20) S.T.R. 577 (Bom.) In that case, it has been held that the assessee is not eligible to avail the credit on the Outdoor Catering Service on the employees share.
4. In view of the above discussion, the impugned order is modified to the extent the Cenvat Credit on Outdoor Catering Service is not admissible to respondent on the part of service tax borne by the worker.
5. The appeal filed by the Revenue is disposed of in the above terms.
(Dictated & Pronounced in open Court)
(P.K. Das) Member (Judicial)
Govind.
2