Commissioner Of Central Excise vs M/S.Tata Auto Comp Systems Ltd on 11 April, 2011

[Cites 0, Cited by 2]

Karnataka High Court

Commissioner Of Central Excise vs M/S.Tata Auto Comp Systems Ltd on 11 April, 2011

Bench: N.Kumar, Ravi Malimath

IN THE HIGH COURT 0F KARNATAKA A;?faANTG.ég'L:5';<e' 

T em: T E T" v~:'v.. Fgpei 2 
DA E S H i3§%SE%%"..__ L     

THE HOEWBLE r»*2i;§;.'d[L§s:*fI§:',i:e" §*£V_.E<QU"§*»3AR

THE Hem'eEE;£{1Mggi;I8z;'gééggmvaziiMTH

'..L.J.L..; *_

 e

Commissioner 'e'f.'vCT.ent.rai4.._ 

Excise   '   

Bangalereill CommE'3s'EQn'e;fa':'e

Bangafore -560' 001    Appeiiani:

 _{By  "}"__j. ':'v".,_\Ief1'k3ta_._Reddy, Advocate)

"M/sV.e_Tafa"A1;tdQiymp Systems Ltd.,

Ptot"M.;;n '2e2;gv.§.'1B:_a"a'd: Indi. Area
Bidasji Post, Rgemanagaram Taiuk

V --VBang4§§0reA (Rina!) Distr§c:i--S62 106 ...Res;3crndent

 .S__r§ Kﬁarameshwaramf Adxsscate)

>!<>§<>§<



 vehéc:-ie ;:e~:d;iS4j'.»'Aand accessories.

7

This CEA filed imderlusectidn 356 of the Ceritrai
Excise Act, 1944 arising out df Order
12/06/2909

passed in Final order No. Bench; Bangaidre in Firiai Order N0. 856/ZOQ9' 12/06/2009,. in Appeai N0. E/401/2{}_{.i.8..,__ ' ' This CZEA coming dn for i*iearsfi1sg:' RAVI MALIMATH 3.; made the fdii_dwin'g._:A~'--._ xddeMENfsd' This appeai is by 'aggrieved by the order df T,i'ibLj:'i*ie'i:' 'assessee is entitied Ed service tax paid on provided by the assessed'-.td'-- dil' and drop from the residence td' die .faetdry._andfvice~versa. The assessee are hdiders of Central Excise i:{E,'§§$'f$#3"§1.§.:{§"€1.n':€f.!ffE~f§CatE? for manufacture of motor Accdrdingiyf the K'"'--__éi'ssessee~vs_.E«s avaiiing Cemzat credit of duty paid en _iitpdt_s_;.-'eeeitai gdeds and input seesiees. The essessee /'1 3% I x} 2 dated{"=_ 856/2OQ9,%_< draying to decide the substantiai question ef«V....I.a'w,."5;; it stated therein and set aside the CESTAT, South-'Zdn"e--,1'L:"-- ' "dated i,w»a».,, 5%,;

3 was avaiimg Cerwat and otitizing ihout tax <:redit____ relating to transportation services (Rent~a~Ca_"o.s:""--._t"= Service). Hence, the show Cause notice was iss_u'ed :"

them as to why the input service,.ta.>_§ av'a'iie'd--As'er:o'~ utiiézed on transportation services.'sh'ot;t¥d:t*~nof:.."'o$ treated as wrongfui avaiEment'eV:r;~q.4'utittiiziawtioo service credit and the same The assessee repiied the assessing officer4r;or1_firmie'd"the V;:X:'&;§'gir.ieved by the same, before the Commissior:e_r"'~.o'f the same.

Aggréeveo by 'a-ssessee preferred an a p see! before' th e t t 'Fhe TriVbiir':'a'iV by reﬁying on the decision in the' »s*t/mash TOYOTETSU PRIVATE LEMITED vs.\::;eE V.:'e';§f;;~teo Eh 2oos (92) sis 315 Bangalore T"-.-e._ h-s,e!e:i thetﬁhe assessee is ehtitfed for avaiirhent of "C'erw_e't.'eredEt on the service tax paid on transportation W' services provided to their staff. :'A§'g':*ie3{ev4d same, the revenue has preferred thie§'«e;:§p_eA'aJi.

4. This appeal was a.<im__itted"i:e"mnsiiziezj ii following substantiai questions oVf"E=a'w:s é_ " 1) Whether the ft:er?:;;7i_e.rfe-»tion 's'erviCe, provided in the fa'e!{)ry'-.92';the"--V;Mfs.--,,Teta Auto Comesysterrjs /tel,"2fQv:':f2eii§_Vsfaf**"'fef~:}i:zir:i< up and drop from§~€fi:e:iif_'--resiQ*ence: and vice versa, V-,';r§pi1€:_V3e21zice_, in er in relation to mae;:feci~=:ife, indirectly of the fine! _ H-tiie meaning and eonﬁerehehsieiiini ) of the Cenvat Credit Ru/esfeeee :4 , ._ . ;2)_ Conseezuently whether the Cenvet credit of ;§'A..e§e.n{ice Se paid for receiving the éV"'§ra;?§pei*€e'Zie_n services by them for pick up ene' ?i_eVem'AV.i'§i"1'eir residence to the factory and vice A --y_eree,.~ eiigible for ax/aiiment and utiiisetien in €emfis;. ef Rule 3 reee' with ease 2(1) arse' Rafe 9 gimi 2~ K353"

avamng such a credit. That the s_a§.d _s'erv_iC'é'"s?§§;:.1'§'d~ have been utilized by the manuféxzctuzfertid«mécti§é' d':' f'=..._'*:¢ mdirectky in or in reiation to the"--r§1anufa¢te3rerT' <:$'f§jf'inai precincts or used in refaticm t_o____VV§3;:*1:_i\;<.i_:_ies;.'feiéﬁingﬁi to business. If any sf teé--'_r.L i%$ s'a--t':j:f:ié~<i» then the service fans under.:nput.¢s--erv§r:e' 'and tﬁe :m1a'ri.ufacturer is efigibte 120_&3§'?;{ai§;?C.EI1V'Bt1{'i};€dffVB{T'{iu'Ci"1'é service tax paid on such ciféxiiiiii, ' S, " V-, In thi':: V\2§.»$'»2_:.4'§'f thé matter, the substantiai questgohs. of i"axs§é""areV' answered in favour of the és«se%$£eé Sr-dézggaanst the revenue. Sei/4% EGSQE 35;;

EZFEQE

Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court

Commissioner Of Central Excise vs M/S.Tata Auto Comp Systems Ltd on 11 April, 2011

Bench: N.Kumar, Ravi Malimath