Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S.Ganesh Bakers Pvt. Ltd vs Cce, Raipur on 25 August, 2015
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
WEST BLOCK NO.2, R.K. PURAM, NEW DELHI-110066
BENCH-SM
COURT IV
Excise Appeal No.E/619/2010 EX. [SM]
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.74/RPR-I/2009 dated 10.12.2009 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Raipur].
For approval and signature:
HONBLE MR. S.K. MOHANTY, 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.Ganesh Bakers Pvt. Ltd. Appellant
Vs.
CCE, Raipur Respondent
Present for the Appellant :Ms. Aparna Hirandagi, Advocate Present for the Respondent: Mr. R.K. Gupta, D.R. Coram: HONBLE MR. S.K. MOHANTY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Date of Hearing/Decision: 25.08.2015 FINAL ORDER NO. ___54269/2015___ PER: S.K. MOHANTY
This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 10.12.2009 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise and Customs, Raipur, wherein cenvat credit of service tax paid on outward transportation of goods from the factory to the depot of M/s. Parle Biscuits was denied on the ground that the said service has been provided beyond the place of removal.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant manufactures biscuits on job work basis for M/s. Parle Biscuits Pvt. Ltd., as per the terms and conditions set out in the agreement dated 07/11/2005. The appellant manufactures biscuits on job work basis under authorization as provided under Notification No. 36/2001-CE (NT) dated 26.06.2001. The appellant pays central excise duty attributable to manufacture of the biscuits. Upon payment of duty, biscuits are removed to the depot of M/s. Parle Biscuits Pvt. Ltd. and from there, the same are sold to various customers. The appellant avails cenvat credit of service tax paid on goods transport agency service for transportation of biscuits from its factory to the depot of M/s Parle. Taking of cenvat credits on such service was disputed by the Central Excise Department. The show casue notice issued in this regard culminated in the adjudication order dated 27.02.2009, wherein cenvat credit of Rs.29,90,650/- taken on such service was disallowed and equal amount of penalty was also imposed on the appellant. The Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld the adjudged demand. Hence, this present appeal is before the Tribunal.
3. The short question involved in this appeal for consideration by this Tribunal is, as to whether, the service tax paid on goods transport agency service for transportation of biscuits from the factory of the appellant to the depot of M/s. Parle Biscuits Pvt. Ltd. should be eligible for cenvat credit under the head input service.
4. Heard the ld. Counsel for both sides and perused the records.
5. I find that the issue arising out of the present dispute is no more res-integra, in view of the decision of this Tribunal in the case of M.P Biscuits Pvt. Ltd., reported in 2012 (282) ELT 563 (Trib.), CCE, Indore vs. Dhananjay Confectionery, reported in 2010 (20) ELT 696 (Tri-Del.) and Order dated 22.01.2014 and 12.02.2014 of this Tribunal in the case of M.P. Bakers Pvt. Ltd.
6. In view of the settled position of law that Service tax paid on outward transportation of goods from the factory to the Depot from where the goods are sold should eligible of cenvat benefit, I am of the considered view that cenvat credit of service tax paid on GTA service in the present case is available to the appellant.
7. Further, I find that the period of dispute involved in this case is from June, 2005 to February, 2007, when the input service definition entitled the manufacturer to take cenvat credit on clearance of final products from the place of removal. Since, under the un-amended definition of input service (effective up to 31.03.2008), the assesse was permitted to take Cenvat credit on the GTA service for transportation of goods from the place of removal, I am of the opinion that the cenvat credit in the present case shall be available to the appellant.
8. In view of above, I do not find any merits in the impugned order, and thus, the same is set aside and the appeal is allowed in favour of the appellant with consequential relief, if any, as per law.
(Dictated and pronounced in the open Court) (S.K. MOHANTY) MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Anita 0 4