Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Commissioner Of Central Excise & S.T., ... vs M/S. Elecon Engineering Company ... on 8 January, 2015
CUSTOMS EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, West Zonal Bench, Ahmedabad Appeal No. : E/1595-1596/2009 [E/Cross/125/2009] (Arising out of OIA-COMMR-A--186&187-VDR-I-2009 dated 31.07.2009 Passed by Commissioner (Appeals) Central Excise & Customs, Vadodara) Commissioner of Central Excise & S.T., Vadodara : Appellant (s) vs. M/s. Elecon Engineering Company Limited : Respondent (s)
Represented by :
For Assessee : Ms. Anoli Patwa For Revenue : Shri K. Sivakumar, A.R. For approval and signature :
Mr. P.K. Das, Hon'ble Member (Judicial) 1 Whether Press Reporter 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 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, Hon'ble Member (Judicial) Date of Hearing / Decision : 08.01.2015 ORDER No. A/10036-10037/2015 Dated 08.01.2015 Per : Mr. P.K. Das;
These appeals are arising out of a common order and therefore, both are taken up together for disposal.
2. Revenue filed these appeals against the impugned order passed by Commissioner (Appeals) whereby, the adjudication orders were set-aside.
3. After hearing both sides and on perusal of the records, I find that the adjudicating authority denied cenvat credit on Goods Transport Services used for clearance of the final products during the period February 2005 to May 2007. Learned Authorised Representative for the Revenue submits that Honble High Court of Calcutta in the case of CCE, Kolkata-VI vs. Vesuvious India Limited 2014 (34) STR 26 (Cal.) held that credit on outward transportation of goods would be eligible at the factory gate. He submits that Honble High Court in the case of Vesuvious India Limited (supra) has considered the decision of the Honble High Court of Karnataka. He submits that the Honble Supreme Court in the case of CCE, Noida vs. Accurate Meters Limited 2009 (235) ELT 581 (S.C.) held that in such case the factory gate would be treated as place of removal.
4. On the other hand, learned Advocate for the respondent submits that the Honble High Court of Karnataka in the case of CCE & ST, LTU Bangalore vs. ABB Limited 2011 (22) STR 97 (Kar) upheld the Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal and observed that place of removal is up to the place of Customers prior to 01.4.2008. She further submits that the same view was taken by the Honble Gujarat High Court in the case of CCE & Customs, vs. Parth Poly Wooven Pvt. Limited 2012 (25) STR 4 (Guj.). She also submits that the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Accurate Meters Limited (supra) as relied upon by the learned AR relates to valuation dispute. She submits that the Honble Supreme Court in the case of All India Fedn. Of Tax Practitioners vs. UOI 2007 (7) STR 625 (S.C.) held that there is distinction on the eligibility of cenvat credit, on inputs or input service in Service Tax.
5. After hearing both the sides and on perusal of records, I find that the issue is decided by the Honble High Court of Karnataka and Honble Gujarat High Court in favour of the Respondent. It is seen that the Honble High Court of Calcutta granted interim stay.
6. In view of the above and respectfully following the decision of the Honble Gujarat High Court and Honble Karnataka High Court, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order of Commissioner (Appeals). Accordingly appeals filed by the Revenue are rejected.
(Dictated and pronounced in the Court) (P.K. Das) Member (Judicial) ..KL 3