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 0, Cited by 1]

Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal

Cce, Jaipur vs M/S Rajasthan Textile Mills on 20 January, 2012

        

 
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX 
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
West Block No. 2, R.K. Puram, NEW DELHI

COURT No. III
	
Service Tax Appeal No.251 of 2006

Date of Hearing: 20.09.2011.

[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No.87-88/MPM/CE/JPR-I/ /2006, dated 31.03.2006 issued by CCE, Jaipur]

For approval and signature:
Honble Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Judicial Member
Honble Mr. Rakesh Kumar, 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 Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?

4
Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?



CCE, Jaipur							Appellant
      Versus
M/s Rajasthan Textile Mills				Respondent

Coram: Honble Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Judicial Member Honble Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Technical Member Present for the Appellant  Shri Sunil Kumar, DR Present for Respondent  Shri S.Yadav, Adv.

Order No._______________ Dated :___________ Per Ms. Archana Wadhwa:

The dispute in the present appeal filed by the Revenue is as to whether the respondent is entitled to use the Modvat credit on service tax for payment of service tax on the GTA services so received by them.

2. We find that the issue stands settled by the Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Nahar Industries Ltd. reported in 2009(235)ELT22(P&H). As such we are of the view that the respondent could have utilized the Modvat credit for payment of duty on the GTA services so availed by them.

3. In as much as the above legal issue stands answered in favour of respondent, we find no reasons to interfere in the impugned order by the Commissioner(Appeals) holding in favour of the respondent. The Revenues appeal is accordingly rejected. (Pronounced in the Open Court on 20.01.12) (Archana Wadhwa) Judicial Member (Rakesh Kumar) Technical Member RK-I 2