Cce, Chennai Ii vs M/S. Lucas Tvs Ltd

(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 113/2009 (M-II) dated 31.12.2009 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Chennai)

CCE, Chennai  II Appellant

Vs.

M/s. Lucas TVS Ltd. Respondent

Appearance

Shri M. Rammohan Rao, DC (AR) for the Appellant None for the Respondent

CORAM

HONBLE SHRI R. PERIASAMI, TECHNICAL MEMBER

Date of Hearing / Decision: 21.1.2015

Final Order No.40057/2015

Revenue has filed this appeal against the impugned order dated 31.12.2009 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals).

2. The issue relates to admissibility of CENVAT credit on manpower supply to canteen and pest controlling. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of Rs.5,91,800/- and imposed equal amount of penalty. On appeal by the respondent, the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed their appeal and set aside the adjudication order.

3. None appeared on behalf of the respondent.

4. The learned AR for Revenue reiterates the grounds of appeal. He further submits that on the identical issue, covering batch of appeals, this Tribunal has remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority.

5. Heard the learned AR and perused the records.

6. Consequent upon the judgment of the Honble Bombay High Court in the case of CCE Vs. Ultratech Cement Ltd.  2010 (20) STR 577 (Bom.), this Tribunal vide Final Order No. 1170 to 1189/2011 dated 28.10.2011 remanded the appeals to the adjudicating authority. The relevant paragraphs are reproduced as under:-

4. Though the order of the Honble Bombay High Court in the case of Ultratech Cement (supra) has not taken note of the provisions of Section 37(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 limiting the rule making power to grant of credit in respect of tax paid on services used in or in relation to the manufacture of final excisable goods, in the absence of a stay order obtained against the same and in the absence of any contrary decisions either by the Honble jurisdictional High Court of Madras or the Honble Supreme Court, the order of the Honble Bombay High Court extending the credit of tax paid on all services used in relation to the business of manufacturing the final product is required to be followed. However, since this order of the Honble Bombay High Court was not before the authorities below when they decided the present cases, I set aside the impugned orders in respect of all these appeals and remand the matter to the respective original authorities for fresh decision applying the ratio laid down in the said order of the Honble Bombay High Court in the case of Ultratech Cement (supra).

5. All these 20 appeals are thus allowed by way of remand in the above terms. It goes without saying that this order is subject to the outcome of the decision of the Honble jurisdictional Madras High Court in the cases filed against the order of this Bench in the case of Sundaram Brake Linings (supra). The parties to these appeals will be at liberty to approach this Tribunal for further orders, if required, as a result of the outcome of the final order of the Honble Madras High court.

7. This appeal appears to be left out while remanding the batch of appeals. Accordingly, this appeal is also remanded to the adjudicating authority for considering the judgment rendered by the Honble High Court of Bombay in the case of Ultratech Cement (supra).

8. The appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed by way of remand to the adjudicating authority.

(Dictated and pronounced in open court)

(R. PERIASAMI) Technical Member Rex

3