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 2, Cited by 4]

Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal

M/S. Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd vs Cce, Trichy on 11 May, 2010

        

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

 
S/5/2004

 
(Arising out of Order in Appeal No.  517/2003 (SCN) TRY-II dated 31.10.2003, passed by the Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise, (Appeals), Trichy).

For approval and signature	

Honble Ms. JYOTI BALASUNDARAM, Vice President
Honble Dr. CHITTARANJAN SATAPATHY, Technical 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 Honble Member wishes to see the fair  	:      
       copy of the  Order.

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

M/s. Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd.			:	Appellants
 
		 Vs.

CCE, Trichy						:	Respondents

Appearance Shri C. Sethapathy, Adv., for the appellants Shri T.H. Rao, SDR, for the respondents CORAM Ms. JYOTI BALASUNDARAM, Vice President Dr. CHITTARANJAN SATAPATHY, Technical Member Date of hearing : 11.05.2010 Date of decision : 11.05.2010 Final ORDER No._____________ Per: Jyoti Balasundaram The demand of service tax on the assessees who are recipients of Goods Transport Operators services is required to be upheld in the light of the apex Courts decision in the case of Gujarat Ambuja Cements Ltd. Vs. UOI reported in 2006 (3) STR 608 (S.C.), upholding the validation of the levy of service tax on users of services rendered by goods transport operators, which was required in view of the apex Court decision in Laghu Udyog Bharati Vs. UOI -1999 (112) ELT 365 (S.C.). The impugned order rejecting the refund claim of Rs.15,88,185/- is therefore upheld and we reject the appeal in the light of the apex Court decision cited supra.

   		(Order dictated and pronounced in the open Court)


						      					                      
(Dr. CHITTARANJAN SATAPATHY)      (JYOTI BALASUNDARAM)       
          TECHNICAL MEMBER                  		 VICE PRESIDENT

BB



2