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 2, Cited by 3]

Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal

Commissioner Of Central Excise vs Rotork Control (India) Pvt.Ltd on 7 July, 2010

        

 
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH AT CHENNAI


Appeal No.E/725/2009


[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.80/2009 (M-II) dated 12.10.2009 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Chennai]


For approval and signature:

Honble Ms.JYOTI BALASUNDARAM, Vice-President 


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 the Member wishes to see the fair copy of
	the Order?								      :

4.	Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental
	Authorities?							      :

	
Commissioner of Central Excise,
Chennai
Appellant

         
       Versus
     

Rotork Control (India) Pvt.Ltd.
Respondent

Appearance:

Shri C.Dhanasekaran, SDR Shri Muthu Venkataraman, Advocate For the Appellant For the Respondent CORAM:
Honble Ms.Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice-President Date of hearing : 7.7.2010 Date of decision : 7.7.2010 Final Order No.____________ The Revenue is in appeal against the extending of CENVAT credit of service tax paid on services of maintenance of water coolers installed in the factory of the assessees and house keeping services.

2. I have heard both sides. I hold that the lower appellate authority has rightly extended the benefit of credit of tax paid on the above mentioned services for the reason that provision and maintenance of water coolers is an essential requirement under the provisions of the Factories Act and house keeping services are also very necessary and vital for keeping the factory in good condition. My view finds support from the decision of the Balkrishna Industries Ltd. Vs CCE Aurangabad [2010 (18) STR 600].

3. Following the ratio of the above, I uphold the impugned order and dismiss the appeal.

(Dictated and pronounced in open court) (JYOTI BALASUNDARAM) VICE-PRESIDENT gs 2