Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Semco Electric Pvt. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, Pune I on 25 November, 2010
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI
COURT NO. II
APPEAL NO. E/427, 428 and 959 of 2009 Mum
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. P-I/VSK/159/2009 dated 25.06.2009, P-I/VSK/15/2008 dated 29.1.2009 and P-I/VSK/16/2008 dated 29.1.2009 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Pune I).
For approval and signature:
Honble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see : No
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 : Yes
of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental : Yes
authorities?
Semco Electric Pvt. Ltd.
:
Appellant
Versus
Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune I
Respondent
Appearance Shri Bharat Raichandani, Advocate for Appellant Shri B.P. Pereira, JDR for Respondents CORAM:
Shri. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) Date of Hearing : 25.11.10 Date of Decision : 25.11.10 ORDER NO.
Per : Ashok Jindal The appellants are in appeals against the denial of refund claim of input services availed by them for export of their goods.
2. In the appellants own case for the earlier period, this Tribunal after considering the issue in detail has held that the appellants are entitled for input service credit on the services involved for export of their goods as reported in 2010 (18) STR 177 (T). The view of this Tribunal has been confirmed by the Honble Bombay High Court in the recent judgement in the case of CCE vs. Ultratech Cement Ltd. 2010-TIOL-745-HC-MUM-ST.
2. In Appeal No. E/959/09, the input service credit was denied by the lower authorities on the ground that the appellants have not produced the evidence of export of their goods which the appellants have produced before me.
3. In view of the above observation, as the appellants cases are covered by the decision of this Tribunal in their own case for the earlier period cited (supra), the appeals No. E/427/09 and E/428/09 are allowed by setting aside the impugned order.
4. With regard to Appeal No. E/959/09, as the lower authorities has not examined the issue whether the goods against which the input service credit availed by the appellant has been exported or not, the matter needs examination at their hand. Accordingly, the same is remanded back to the adjudicating authority to examine whether the goods on which the appellant has availed input service credit has been imported or not. If it is found if the goods have been imported on which input service credit has been availed, then the appellants are entitled for CENVAT credit. With this observation, the impugned order is set aside and allowed the appeal by way of remand.
(Dictated in Court) (Ashok Jindal) Member (Judicial) nsk 3