Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Commissioner Of Central Excise ... vs M/S Nagarjuna Agrichem Ltd on 8 November, 2013
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SOUTH ZONAL BENCH BANGALORE Final Order No . 26956 / 2013 Application(s) Involved: E/MISC/27416/2013 in E/1391/2011-SM Appeal(s) Involved: E/1391/2011-SM [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 01/2011 dated 31/01/2011 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax (Appeals), VISAKHAPATNAM] Commissioner of Central Excise ,Customs and Service Tax, VISAKHAPATNAM-I CENTRAL EXCISE BUILDING PORT AREA, VISAKHAPATNAM ANDHRA PRADESH-530035 Appellant(s) Versus M/s Nagarjuna Agrichem Ltd ARINAMA, AKKIVALASA, ETCERLA MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM,DIST AP Srikakulam Dist., A.P. Respondent(s)
Appearance:
Ms. Sabrina Cano, Superintendent(AR) For the Appellant Mr. Akbar Baseer, Adv.
Hiregange & Associates #1010, 1st Floor, 26th Main, 4th T Block, Jayanagar, For the Respondent Bangalore 560 041.
CORAM:
HONBLE SHRI B.S.V. MURTHY, TECHNICAL MEMBER ________________________________________ Date of Hearing: 08/11/2013 Date of Decision: 08/11/2013 Order Per : B.S.V. MURTHY This appeal is filed by Revenue. Issue involved is eligibility of Cenvat credit of service tax paid on Group Health Insurance Service. Both the authorities of the department have taken a view that the respondent is eligible for credit.
2. Miscellaneous application listed today is to amend the prayer in Revenues appeal. Learned AR submits that Revenue has asked for restoration of the order of original adjudicating authority. There was a mistake in the prayer even before the original adjudicating authority who had taken a view that the respondent herein is eligible for credit.
3. In any case, I find that the appeal has no merit whatsoever, there is no need to consider the misc. application and even the appeal itself can be decided at this stage.
4. Learned counsel for respondent submits that in their own case vide Final Order No. 25395/2013 dated 12.6.2013, this Tribunal had taken a view that the respondent is eligible for credit as the appellant is not at fault.
5. Since the issue is no longer res integra, there is no point in considering the misc. application nor postponing decision in the appeal at later stage. Accordingly, both misc. application as well as appeal are dismissed as devoid merit.
(Order dictated and pronounced in open court) (B.S.V. MURTHY) TECHNICAL MEMBER /vc/