Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Cce, C & St, Hyderabad-Iii vs M/S. Sagar Cements Ltd on 26 October, 2016
CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
REGIONAL BENCH AT HYDERABAD
Bench SMB
Court I
Appeal No. E/3142/2012
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 58/2012 (H-III) CE dated 16.08.2012 passed by CC, CE & ST (Appeals-I&III), Hyderabad)
For approval and signature:
Honble Ms. Sulekha Beevi, C.S., Member(Judicial)
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 Lordship wish to see the fair copy of the Order?
4.
Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
CCE, C & ST, Hyderabad-III
..Appellant(s)
Vs.
M/s. Sagar Cements Ltd.,
..Respondent(s)
Appearance Shri. Guna Ranjan, Superintendent (AR) for the Appellant.
Shri. Y. Sreenivasa Reddy, Advocate for the Respondent.
Coram:
Honble Ms. Sulekha Beevi, C.S., Member (Judicial) Date of hearing: 26/10/2016 Date of decision: 26/10/2016 FINAL ORDER No.___________________ [Order per: Sulekha Beevi, C.S.] The above appeal is filed by the department against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) who allowed the credit availed in respect of Service Tax paid by appellant on Group Mediclaim policy, Rent-a-cab service and Air Travel Agency service. The period involved is from May, 2007 to September, 2011.
2. It is submitted by the Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Shri. Y. Sreenivasa Reddy, that the respondent has not availed credit on Group Mediclaim policy, and Rent-a-cab service after 01.04.2011. With regard to the Air Travel Agency service, he submitted that the same was availed for the travel of employees to attend meeting and seminar abroad. There is no evidence put forward by department to establish that the said services were used for the personal use or personal consumption of the employee on the respondent company. The Commissioner(Appeals) has also observed that the demand is time barred. The department has filed the appeal stating that the returns reflected the credit availed by them. This shows that there is no positive act of suppression so as to invoke the extended period of limitation. On perusal of records, and after hearing the submission made by both sides, I find no merits in the appeal filed by department. The appeal is dismissed.
(Dictated & pronounced in open court) SULEKHA BEEVI C.S. MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Lakshmi.
2