Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Cce, Meerut I vs M/S Bajaj Hindustan Sugar Ltd on 4 September, 2017
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Old Red Building, 38 M.G. Marg, Civil Lines, Allahabad 211 001 COURT NO. II DATE OF HEARING/DECISION : 04/09/2017. Excise Appeal No. 70038 of 2016 (SM) [Arising out of the Order-in-Appeal No. MRT/EXCUS/000/APPEAL-I/200/2015-16 dated 31/08/2015 passed by The Commissioner, Central Excise, Meerut.] CCE, Meerut I Appellant Versus M/s Bajaj Hindustan Sugar Ltd. Respondent
Appearance Shri Gynandera Tripathi, Authorized Representative (DR) for the Appellant.
Shri Pradeep K. Mittal, Advocate for the Respondent.
CORAM: Honble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) Final Order No. 70868/2017 Dated : 04/09/2017 Per. Ashok Jindal :-
Revenue is in appeal against the impugned order wherein learned Commissioner (Appeals) has allowed credit to the appellant on cargo handling services.
2. The case of the Revenue is that as the service provider has provided the service of loading and unloading of sugar bags, stitching bags, arranging bags in stacks, weighing bags etc. within the factory premises of the appellant and unloading of sugar bags are not connected with transportation, therefore, the same does not qualify as input service. Therefore, Cenvat credit sought to be denied. The Adjudicating Authority denied the Cenvat credit to the respondent and consequently demanded duty alongwith interest and imposed equivalent amount of penalty on the respondent. The appellant appeared before the learned Commissioner (Appeals) who allowed the Cenvat credit. Aggrieved by this order, Revenue before me.
3. Heard the parties considered the submissions.
4. On perusal of the record, I find that the availment of service by the respondent has not been disputed by the Revenue. As per Rule 3 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, if any service is availed by the assessee on which service tax has been paid, the assessee entitled to Cenvat credit thereon. In that circumstances, the Cenvat credit cannot be denied to the respondent on the premise that the said service provider does not fall under cargo handling service.
5. In these terms I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. The appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. (Dictated and pronounced in open court.) (Ashok Jindal) Member (Judicial) PK 2 EX/70038 of 2016