C.C.E. Jaipur vs M/S Sakata Inx India

[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No. 249-250(VC)ST/JPR-I/2013 dated: 31.12.2013 passed by Commissioner (Appeals-I) Jaipur]

For approval and signature:

Hon'ble Mr. S.K. Mohanty, 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 Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?

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

C.C.E. Jaipur ...Appellant

Vs.

M/s Sakata Inx India Respondent

Appearance:

Mr. Devender Singh, DR for the Appellants

Mr. S C Kamra, Advocate, for the Respondent

CORAM:

Hon'ble Mr. S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial)

Date of Hearing.09.06.2015

FINAL ORDER NO. 51816 /2015

Per S. K. Mohanty:

This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 31.12.2013 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) Jaipur, wherein the cenvat credit taken by the appellant on the courier service has been allowed by holding that such service cannot be regarded as outward transportation provided by the goods transport agency. Being aggrieved with the said impugned order, the Appellant revenue has preferred this appeal on the ground that since the Respondent herein were utilizing the services of courier agencies for delivery of final products at the customers premises, the said service will be termed as outward transportation, and in view of the definition of input service contained in Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, the benefit of credit shall not be available to the Respondent.

2. Heard the Ld. Counsels for the sides and perused the records.

3. It an admitted fact on record that the appellant had received the courier services for speedy delivery of the final product to their customers after clearance from the factory. The service providers are registered under the category of courier service. Since the services availed from the courier agency are relating to the business activities of the appellant, in terms of the definition of input service, service tax paid on such taxable service is eligible for cenvat benefit. Therefore, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order, and as such, the appeal filed by the Revenue appellant is dismissed. The Respondent is eligible for consequential relief, if any, as per law.

(Dictated and pronounced in open court)

(S.K. Mohanty)

Member(Judicial)

Neha

Page | 1