Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Flex Industries Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 12 June, 2015
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI
PRINCIPAL BENCH, COURT NO. II
Service Tax Appeal No. 625 of 2009
[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No. 112-CE/NOIDA/2009 dated 30.04.2009 passed by Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise (Appeals) NOIDA]
For approval and signature:
Honble Mr Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)
Hon'ble Mr. R K Singh, Member (Technical)
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. Flex Industries Ltd. Appellants
Vs.
Commissioner of Central Excise Respondent
NOIDA Appearance:
Shri K K Anand, Advocate for the Appellants Smt. Suchitra Sharma, AR for the Respondent CORAM:
Hon'ble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) Hon'ble Mr. R K Singh, Member (Technical) Date of Hearing /decision: 12.6.2015 FINAL ORDER NO. A/ 51898/2015-ST Per Ashok Jindal :
The short issue involved in the case is whether the appellant is entitled to avail Cenvat credit account for payment of outward transport agent services during the period January, 2005 to September, 2006 or not.
2. The issue has been settled by Honble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the case of Nahar Industrial Enterprises Ltd. [2012 (25) STR 129 (P&H)] wherein the Honble High Court has held that during the period January 2005 to September 2006, the appellant is entitled to utilize their cenvat credit account for payment of outward transportation service. Therefore, issue is no more res integra.
3. In these circumstances, appellant has correctly taken the cenvat credit and utilized for payment of outward transportation services during the impugned year. Consequently, the impugned order deserve no merits, hence, set aside. Appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any.
( Dictated and pronounced in the open court )
( Ashok Jindal ) Member(Judicial)
( R K Singh )
Member(Technical)
ss
2