Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal

Cce, Indore vs M/S. Cummins Technologies India Ltd on 29 March, 2012

        

 
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, 
WEST BLOCK NO.II, R.K. PURAM, 
NEW DELHI-110066

COURT NO. II

Central Excise appeal No. 2914 of 2009
With C.O. No. 25/2009

[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. IND-I/139/2009 dated 31.7.2009 passed by Commissioner (Appeals-I), Central Excise, Indore]

Date of Hearing/decision: 29th March, 2012

For approval and signature:

Honble Shri D.N. Panda, Judicial Member

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 Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?

4
Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?


CCE, Indore                                                           Appellant
      
      Vs.

M/s. Cummins Technologies India Ltd.,                Respondent

Present for the Appellant : Shri Bharat Bhushan, D.R. Present for the Respondent : Shri Amit Jain, Advocate Coram: Honble Shri D.N. Panda, Judicial Member FINAL ORDER NO. ________________ Per D.N. Panda:

Learned Representative for Revenue submits that learned Commissioner (Appeals) should not have allowed Cenvat credit on carrier service availed by Respondent. Learned Counsel for the respondent says that the relief granted by Tribunal in the case of M/s. ADG Ltd. was upheld by Honble High Court of Karnataka as reported in 2001 (23) STR 97 (Kar.). So also, the ratio laid down by Honble High Court of Gujarat in the case of CCE & C vs. Parth Poly Wooven Pvt. Ltd., reported in 2012 (25) STR 4 (Guj.) supports case of respondent.

2. Maintaining judicial discipline and consistency, so also following the decision in the aforesaid two judgments of Honble High Courts, the respondent may not be denied Cenvat credit of the service tax paid on Courier Service availed in respect of outward transportation.

3. In the result, Revenues appeal is dismissed and cross objection is disposed. (Dictated & pronounced in the Open Court.) (D.N. PANDA) JUDICIAL MEMBER RK 2