Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Shantala Spherocast Pvt Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 3 November, 2016
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SOUTH ZONAL BENCH BANGALORE Appeal(s) Involved: ST/238/2009-SM, ST/239/2009-SM [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 245/2008 dated 11/11/2008 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mangalore.] SHANTALA SPHEROCAST PVT LTD NO.36-B, SHIMOGA-BHADRAVATHI INDUSTRIAL AREA, MACHENAHALLI NIDIGE POST, SHIMOGA Appellant(s) Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax MYSORE S1-S2, VINAYA MARGA, SIDDHARTHA NAGAR, MYSORE - 570011 KARNATAKA Respondent(s)
Appearance:
Mr. Ashok Deshpande, Advocate K.S. RAVI SHANKAR # 152, RACE COURSE ROAD,BANGALORE BANGALORE - 560001 KARNATAKA For the Appellant Dr. J. Harish, AR For the Respondent Date of Hearing: 03/11/2016 Date of Decision: 03/11/2016 CORAM:
HON'BLE SHRI S.S GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER Final Order No. 21097-21098 / 2016 Per : S.S GARG Both these appeals are directed against the order passed by the Commissioner (A) vide his order dated 11.11.2008 vide which the Commissioner (A) has rejected the appeals of the appellant. Since the issue involved in both the appeals is identical, both the appeals are disposed of by a common order.
2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of castings and they are holding service tax registration under the taxable service category of Goods Transport Agency (GTA) service. The appellants have been issued two show-cause notices alleging that the appellant had availed credit of service tax paid in respect of services of personal vehicle maintenance, insurance and repair and personal accident policy/insurance claim amounting to Rs.1,16,698/- for the period from February 2006 to November 2006 on a taxable value of Rs.4,75,753/- paid for the period from January 2005 to January 2006. Thereafter the adjudicating authority confirmed the proposal in the show-cause notice. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed the appeals before the Commissioner (A), who after considering the arguments of the appellant and the decisions and circulars in this regard passes a common Order-in-Appeal dated 11.11.2008 partially allowing the CENVAT credit on personal vehicle maintenance, insurance and repair and personal accident insurance claim and partially rejecting credit of service tax paid on outward transportation. Aggrieved by the impugned order rejecting the credit of service tax paid on outward transportation, the appellant filed the present appeal.
3. Heard both the parties and perused the records.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed by misconstruing the definition of input service and also ignoring the judicial precedents decided by the higher judicial fora on the issue. In support of his submission, he relied upon the following judgments.
a) CCE vs. Ultratech Cement Ltd.: 2010 (260) ELT 369 (Bom.)
b) CCE & C vs. Philips Carbon Black Ltd.: 2016 (44) STR 253 (Guj.)
c) Krishna Barrels P. Ltd. vs. CCE & C (Adjn.): 2015 (40) STR 797 (Tri.-Ahmed.)
d) B.G. Shirke Technology P. Ltd. vs. CCE: 2012 (27) STR 366 (Tri.-Mum.)
e) CCE & C vs. Parth Poly Wooven Pvt. Ltd.: 2012 (25) STR 4 (Guj.)
f) CCE & ST, LTU vs. ABB Ltd.: 2011 (23) STR 97 (Kar.) He further submitted that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the appellant by the judgments cited supra.
5. On the other hand, the learned AR reiterated the findings in the impugned order.
6. After going through the judgments cited supra, I am of the considered view that the issue stand settled in favour of the appellant by the judgments cited supra and therefore, I allow both the appeals of the appellant with consequential relief, if any, after setting aside the impugned order.
(Operative portion of the Order was pronounced in open court on 03.11.2016.) S.S GARG JUDICIAL MEMBER rv 2