Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Cummins Turbo Technologies Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 18 June, 2009
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI
PRINCIPAL BENCH, COURT NO. III
Excise Appeal No. 509 of 2009
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. IND-I/205/ 2008 dated 8.12.2008 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals I) Central Excise & Customs, Indore].
For approval and signature:
Hon'ble Mr. M. Veeraiyan, Member (Technical)
Hon'ble Mr. P.K.Das, 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 Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?
4
Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
M/s. Cummins Turbo Technologies Ltd. Appellant
Vs.
Commissioner of Central Excise Respondent
Indore
Appearance:
Mr. S.J. Vyas, Advocate for the Appellant
Mr. B.S. Suhag, DR for the Respondent
CORAM:
Hon'ble Mr. M. Veeraiyan, Member (Technical)
Hon'ble Mr. P.K.Das, Member (Judicial)
Date of Hearing/Decision: 18.6.2009
ORAL ORDER NO . ________________
Per P.K.Das (for the Bench):
Heard both sides and perused the records.
2. The issue involved in this case as to whether Cenvat credit taken by the appellant in respect of service tax paid for transport of goods from their factory for delivery at buyers place through courier service is admissible. Learned advocate submits that in identical issue, Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ABB Ltd. and others vs. CCE & ST, Bangalore & Ors. [2009 (92) RLT 665 (CESTAT-LB)] held that outward transportation of goods from place of removal of goods is input service as it is covered by words activities relating to business used in the definition and each limb of definition is an independent benefit / concession manufacture of goods is eligible to take credit of tax paid on such service. Relevant portion of the decision of Larger Bench is reproduced below:-
24. In the light of the discussion, we hold that the definition of input service has to be interpreted in the light of the requirements of business and it cannot be read restrictively so as to confine only upto the factory or upto the depot of manufacturers.
25. In the result, we answer the reference by holding that the services availed by a manufacturer for outward transportation of final products from the place of removal should be treated as an input service in terms of Rule 2(1)(ii) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 and thereby enabling the manufacturer to take credit of the service tax paid on the value of such services.
3. In view of that, we find that on the issue involved is covered by the ratio of Larger Bench decision in the case of M/s. ABB Ltd. and Ors. (supra). Hence, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed with consequential relief.
( M. Veeraiyan ) Member(Technical) ( P.K.Das ) Member(Judicial) ss 2