Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Syschem India Ltd vs Cce & St Panchkula on 27 February, 2014
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI PRINCIPAL BENCH, COURT NO. III Service Tax Appeal No. 50011 of 2014-ST(SM) Service Tax Stay Application No. 50017 of 2014-Ex(SM) [Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No. 142/CE/D-II/ 2013 dt. 20.8.2013 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) , Delhi II] For approval and signature: Honble Ms. Archana Wadhwa, 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? No 2 Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? No 3 Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order? Seen 4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities? Yes M/s. Syschem India Ltd. Appellants Vs. CCE & ST Panchkula Respondent
Appearance:
Shri A S Gill, Advocate for the Appellant Shri M S Negi , AR for the Respondents Date of Hearing : 27.02.2014 ORDER NO .FO/ A/ 50881 /2014-SM(Br) Per Archana Wadhwa:
The appellant, who is a job worker for M/s. Ranbaxy has been denied the benefit of Cenvat credit of service tax of Rs.4,55,477/- availed by them during the period 2003-2004 to 2007-2008 and 2009-2010 in respect of service tax paid to the Commission agent, whose services have been utilized by them. Proceedings were initiated against them on the ground that since they are working under the provisions of Notification No. 214/86 and clearing their goods without payment of duty they would not be entitled to benefit of Cenvat credit in terms of Rule 6(1) of Cenvat Credit Rules.
2. It is seen that the original adjudicating authority dropped the demand, however Commissioner (Appeals) affirmed the same on appeal by the Revenue.
Hence present stay application along with appeal.
3. It is seen that the issue is no more res integra and stand settled by the Larger Bench decision in the case of Sterlite Industries (I) Ltd. vs. Commissioner [2005 (183) ELT 353 (Tri-LB)] as also of Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of CCE, Ludhiana vs. Jainsons Wool Coombers Ltd. [2012 (26) STR 488 (P&H)]. Accordingly after dispensing with the condition of pre-deposit of dues, I take up the appeal itself for final disposal.
4. Inasmuch the issue stand decided by the above referred decisions, I set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief to the appellant.
(Dictated and pronounced in the open court )
( Archana Wadhwa ) Member(Judicial)
ss
??
??
??
??
2