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 3, Cited by 5]

Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal

Bapl Industries Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 16 September, 2009

        

 
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH AT CHENNAI


Appeal No.S/20/2008


[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.14/2007-ST dated 15.11.2007 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax (Appeals), Coimbatore]


For approval and signature:

Honble Ms.JYOTI BALASUNDARAM, Vice-President 


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 the Member wishes to see the fair copy of
	the Order?								      :

4.	Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental
	Authorities?							      :

	
BAPL Industries Ltd.
Appellants

         
       Versus
     

Commissioner of Central Excise, Coimbatore
Respondent

Appearance:

Shri M.Karthikeyan, Consultant Shri T.H.Rao, SDR For the Appellants For the Respondent CORAM:
Honble Ms.Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice-President Date of hearing : 16.9.2009 Date of decision : 16.9.2009 Final Order No.____________ The issue for determination in this appeal is whether the assessees herein, who are manufacturers of excisable goods, are entitled to take CENVAT credit of service tax paid on GTA service received by them  the contention of the Revenue as upheld by the authorities below is that GTA service received by them was not an output service and the assessees therefore could not utilize CENVAT credit for payment of the service tax.

2. On hearing both sides, I find that the issue stands settled in favour of the assessees by the decisions of the Tribunal in the cases of India Cements Ltd. Vs CCE Salem, [2007 (7) S.T.R. 569], R.R.D.Tex Pvt. Ltd. Vs CCE Salem, [2007 (8) STR 186] and Pallipalayam Spinners Pvt. Ltd. Vs CCE Salem [2008 (9) STR 544]. Following the ratio of the above decisions, I set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.

(Dictated and pronounced in open court) (JYOTI BALASUNDARAM) VICE-PRESIDENT gs 2