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 1, Cited by 1]

Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal

Commissioner Of Central Excise vs Sundaram Fasteners Pvt. Ltd on 12 March, 2014

        

 
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH
CHENNAI


Appeal No.E/486/2007

[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.39/2007(M-II) dated 28.2.2007 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Chennai]

For approval and signature :

Honble Shri Pradip Kumar Das, 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 the Member wishes to see the fair copy of the order ?								:

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


Commissioner of Central Excise,
Chennai-II								Appellant

         Versus

Sundaram Fasteners Pvt. Ltd.				Respondent

Appearance:

Shri P. Arul, Superintendent (AR) 	     For the Appellant

Shri M.Kannan, Advocate		    For the Respondent




CORAM :

Honble Shri Pradip Kumar Das, Judicial Member

Date of Hearing : 12-03-2014
     Date of Decision  :  12-03-2014

FINAL ORDER No.40202/2014


Per Pradip Kumar Das


1. Revenue filed this appeal against the order of Commissioner (Appeals) whereby cenvat credit on mobile phones was allowed.

2. Heard both sides and perused records

3. The Learned Authorized Representative on behalf of Revenue submits that mobile phone is not related to the business activities and therefore they are not eligible to avail credit.

4. I find that Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CCE Vs Excel Crop Care Ltd.  2008 (12) S.T.R. 436 (Guj.) held that cenvat credit is eligible on mobile phones. There is no material that mobile phones were used by the employees not related to manufacture. Following the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Excel Crop Care Ltd. (supra), I do not find any reason to interfere with the order of Commissioner (Appeals). Accordingly, the appeal filed by Revenue is rejected.

(Dictated and pronounced in open court) (PRADIP KUMAR DAS) JUDICIAL MEMBER gs 2