Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Commissioner Of Central Excise And ... vs Triveni Engineering And Industries Ltd on 1 January, 2014
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SOUTH ZONAL BENCH BANGALORE Final Order No. 20002 / 2014 Appeal(s) Involved: E/540/2008-SM [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 149/2008 dated 28/03/2008 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore] Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax -Bangalore-III P.B. No.5400, Queens Road, Central Revenues Building, Bangalore - 560 001 Karnataka Appellant(s) Versus Triveni Engineering and Industries Ltd. Phase-I, Peenya Industrial Area, Bangalore Respondent(s)
Appearance:
Mr. S. Teli, Deputy Commissioner (AR) For the Appellant Mr. Raghavendra, Advocate World Trade Centre, No. 404-406, 4th Floor, South Wing, Brigade Gateway Campus, No. 26/1 Dr. Rajkumar Road, Malleswaram West, Bangalore - 560 055 For the Respondent CORAM:
HON'BLE SHRI B.S.V. MURTHY, TECHNICAL MEMBER Date of Hearing: 01/01/2014 Date of Decision: 01/01/2014 The issue involved is whether the appellant is eligible for CENVAT credit of service tax paid on GTA service utilized for outward transportation of the final products. The period involved is April 2005 to February 2007 and the amount involved is Rs. 5,45,460/-. The Revenue is in appeal against the order wherein Commissioner has remanded the matter after observing that since all the purchase orders are not placed before him, he cannot come to a conclusion as to the claim of the appellant that in all cases place of removal was not factory gate; the extended period could not have been invoked in this case since there were contrary views during the relevant period and thirdly he also observed that the original adjudicating authority has not given any finding with regard to the applicability of Boards circular as regards place of removal.
2. The learned AR supports the stand taken by the Revenue in the memorandum of appeal and submits that the Commissioner (Appeals) has no power to remand and mistakenly decided the case. However both sides agree that the issue is covered by the decision of the Honble High Court of Karnataka in the case of CCE & ST, Bangalore Vs. ABB Ltd. reported in [2011 (22) S.T.R. 386 (Kar.)] wherein Honble High Court took the view that prior to 01.04.2008, the CENVAT credit of service tax paid on outward transportation would be available even if the factory gate is the place of removal since the definition amended only on 01.02.2008. The amendment substituted the word up to the place of removal in place of from the place of removal. In this case the respondent has availed the CENVAT credit for outward transportation and apparently from the Commissioner (Appeals) order it is quite clear that the department has treated the factory gate as the place of removal and even if factory gate is taken as place of removal, in terms of the decision of the Honble High Court, the credit would be admissible. That being the position the Revenue has no case whatsoever on merits. Accordingly appeal filed by the Revenue is rejected.
(Order dictated and pronounced in open court) (B.S.V. MURTHY) TECHNICAL MEMBER iss