Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Commissioner , Ltu , Chennai vs M/S. Rane Trw Steering Systems Ltd on 13 August, 2015
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH, CHENNAI
E/00057/2011
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal Nol.182/2010, dated 18.10.02010 passed by the Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise (Appeals), Trichy]
COMMISSIONER , LTU , CHENNAI
APPELLANT
Versus
M/s. Rane TRW Steering Systems Ltd.
RESPONDENT
Appearance:
For the Appellant Shri M. Rammohan Rao, Adv.
For the Respondent Shri M. Karthikeyan, [No vakalat on file] AC (AR) CORAM:
Honble Shri D.N. Panda, Judicial Member Date of hearing/decision 13-08-2015 FINAL ORDER NO.41231/2015 When the respondent took credit of the service tax paid on transporting the goods out of the factory for delivery at the premises of the buyer such credit was denied by the Adjudicating authority. But the appellate authority held that outward transportation being part of the business acivity, the service tax paid thereon is admissible to be claimed as Cenvat credit.
2. Revenue supports the Adjudication order.
3. Respondent submits that when it complied with the Boards Circular No.97/6/2007, dated 23.08.2007, there is no dispute about the contract for delivery of the goods at the buyers premises. There should not be denial of Cenvat credit on the outward freight following the decision of the Honble High Court of Bombay in the case of M/s. Coca Cola India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-III reported in 2009 (15) S.T.R.657 (Bom.) and also following the decision of the High Court of Karnataka in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax (LTU), Bangalore Vs ABB Ltd. reported in 2011 (23) S.T.R.97 (Kar.) and by High Court of Madras in the case of The Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai-II Commissionerate Vs M/s. Borg Warner Morse Tec Murugappa Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. reported in 2015-TIOL-831-HC-MAD-CX.
4. When the claim of the respondent was that it satisfies the requirement of the circular, it should have produced the document before learned Commissioner (Appeals) for examination. But that was not done. Therefore, that Authority has directed lower authority to verify relevant evidence for the period Apr.06 to Mar.07. Therefore, his order does not appear to be incorrect. Accordingly, subject to carrying out of the direction of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) his finding does not call for interference. Revenue appeal is thus dismissed. (Dictated and pronounced in open court) (D.N. PANDA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ksr 21-09-2015 DRAFT Remarks I II III Date of dictation 13.08.2015 Draft Order - Date of typing 21.09.2015 Fair Order Typing 22.09.2015 Date of number and date of dispatch 22.09.2015 4 E/00057/2011