C.C.E.&S.T., Raipur vs M/S. Sks Ispat And Power Ltd
- CitationAppeal No.E/54717/2014-EX[SM]
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where a job worker has elected under Notification No. 8/2005-ST to pay service tax on job work rather than claim the exemption, and has paid that tax and passed it on to the principal through documents prescribed under the CENVAT credit scheme, the principal is entitled to take CENVAT credit on the basis of those documents, and that credit cannot be denied on the ground that the job work was exempt under the notification.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
1. Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? No 2. Whether it would be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? Yes 3. Whether Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the order? Seen 4. Whether order is to be circulated to the Department Authorities? Yes
Appeal No.E/54717/2014-EX[SM]
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.130/RPR-I/2014, dated 05.06.2014 passed by the C.C.E.(Appeals), Raipur-I]
C.C.E.&S.T., Raipur Appellant
Vs.
M/s. SKS Ispat and Power Ltd. Respondent
Appearance
Mr. GR Singh, DR - For Appellant
Mr. Manish Sahay, Advocate - For Respondent
CORAM: Honble Mr. S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial)
Final Order No.________________, dated 15.09.2015
Per Mr. S.K. Mohanty :
Revenue is in appeal against the impugned order dated 05.06.2014 passed by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals), setting aside the adjudication order dated 31.01.2014 and allowing the appeal in favour of the respondent herein.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent was engaged in the manufacture of iron and steel products, falling under Chapter 72 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. During the period 24.10.2009 to 12.10.2011, the respondent had availed service tax credit of Rs.1,22,859/- on briquetting, on the basis of invoice/challan issued by the job worker. Taking of CENVAT credit was disallowed by the Central Excise Department, on the ground that the service tax was not liable to be charged on the job work in terms of Notification No.8/2005-ST, dated 01.03.2005.
3. Heard ld. Departmental Representative for Revenue and ld. advocate for the appellant and perused the records.
4. I find that the Notification No.8/2005-ST, dated 01.03.2005 provides option to the job worker either to avail the exemption or to pay the service tax on the job work activities. In the present case, the job worker has opted to pay the service tax and upon payment of service tax, the same was passed on to the respondent through valid documents prescribed under CENVAT credit scheme. Since on the basis of the proper documents, the respondent has taken the CENVAT credit, the same cannot be denied on the ground that the job work activities were exempted from payment of service tax in terms of the above Notification.
5. In view of the above, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order passed by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals), and thus, the appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed.
[Operated portion pronounced in the open court]
(S.K. Mohanty)
Member (Judicial)
SSK
??
??
??
??
-3-
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free