Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Commissioner Of Customs, Central ... vs Jocil Ltd on 24 June, 2015
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SOUTH ZONAL BENCH BANGALORE Appeal(s) Involved: E/3262/2012-SM [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 37-2012 (G)CE dated 22/08/2012 passed by CC&C(Appeals), Guntur] For approval and signature: HON'BLE SHRI ARCHANA WADHWA, 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? No 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? Seen 4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities? Yes Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax GUNTUR NULL P.B.NO. 331...C.R.BUILDING, KANNAVARI THOTA, GUNTUR, - 520004 ANDHRA PRADESH Appellant(s) Versus JOCIL LTD DOKIPARRU, GUNTUR DIST Respondent(s)
Appearance:
Shri S. Teli, Deputy Commissioner(AR) For the Appellant Shri B.N. Gururaj, Advocate For the Respondent Date of Hearing: 24/06/2015 Date of Decision: 24/06/2015 CORAM:
HON'BLE SMT. ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Final Order No. 21426 / 2015 Per : ARCHANA WADHWA Being aggrieved with the order passed by the Commissioner(Appeals), Revenue has filed the present appeal.
2. After hearing both the sides duly represented by Shri S. Teli, Deputy Commissioner(AR) for the Revenue and Shri B.N. Gururaj, Advocate for the respondent, I find that the issue involved is as to whether the respondents are entitled to avail the CENVAT credit of service tax paid on GTA services utilised by them for transportation of the goods from factory gate to the port area from where the same are further exported. I find the issue is no more res integra and stands settled by various decisions of the Tribunal. Some references can be made to the Tribunal decisions in the case of CC&CE, Hyderabad-IV Vs. Pokarna Ltd. [2013(292) ELT 316 (Tri. Bang.)] and in the case of Modern Petrofils Vs. CCE, Vadodara [2010(253) ELT 609 (Tri. Ahmd.)]. Inasmuch as the issue is decided, I find no infirmity in the view of the Commissioner(Appeals). Revenues appeal is accordingly rejected.
(Order pronounced and dictated in open court) ARCHANA WADHWA JUDICIAL MEMBER Raja 2