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 0, Cited by 3]

Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal

Cc & Ce, Hyderabad-Iii vs M/S Penna Cement Industries Ltd on 5 May, 2016

        

 
CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
REGIONAL BENCH AT HYDERABAD
Bench  SMB
Court  I


Appeal No. E/858/2006

(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 22/2006 (H-III) CE dt. 10.05.2006 passed by CC & CE (Appeals), Hyderabad)


For approval and signature:

Honble Ms. Sulekha Beevi, C.S., Member (Judicial)


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 their Lordship wish to see the fair copy of the Order?


4.
Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?


CC & CE, Hyderabad-III
..Appellant(s)
Vs.

M/s Penna Cement Industries Ltd.,
..Respondent(s)

Appearance Shri Chatur Singh, Assistant Commissioner (AR) for the Appellant.

Ms Rukmani Menon, Advocate for the Respondent.

Coram:

Honble Ms. Sulekha Beevi, C.S., Member (Judicial) Date of Hearing: 05.05.2016 Date of Decision: 05.05.2016 FINAL ORDER No._______________________ [Order per: Sulekha Beevi, C.S.] This is an appeal filed by Revenue challenging the order passed by Commissioner (Appeals) which allowed credit of service tax paid on outward transportation.

2. The ground raised by revenue is that transportation to the customers premises does not qualify as input service and that credit is not admissible. The issue is covered by the judgment in the case of CCE, Hyderabad-III Vs Grey Gold Cements Ltd., [2014 (34) STR 808 (A.P.)] and the respondents own case where the Tribunal by Final Order No. 26717/2013 dated 09.10.2013 held that credit is admissible. The period involved in this case is also prior to 01.04.2008. Taking into consideration the above legal position, I find that there is no infirmity in the impugned order. The appeal is dismissed. (Operative part of this order was pronounced in court on conclusion of the hearing) SULEKHA BEEVI C.S. MEMBER(JUDICIAL) Jaya.

2