Commissioner, Central Excise, ... vs M/S. Aarti Steels Ltd
- CitationExcise Appeal No.E/2715-2716/2009 EX. [SM]
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Cenvat credit of service tax paid on outward transportation of final products is admissible as an input service under the definition in Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, where the Karnataka High Court has decided the appeal against the Larger Bench decision in ABB Ltd. in the assessee's favour on that construction. Where a Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal has been affirmed in the assessee's favour by a High Court, a Revenue appeal challenging the same proposition, and grounded only on the pendency of an appeal against that decision, has no merit and is to be dismissed. Where the High Court of Punjab and Haryana has held, in Ambuja Cement, that service tax paid on goods transport agency services is available as Cenvat credit, the issue stands settled against the Revenue and an order following that position discloses no infirmity.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.114-118/CE/LDH/2009 dated 19.06.2009 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Chandigarh]
For approval and signature:
HONBLE 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?
__________________________________________________
Commissioner, Central Excise, Ludhiana Appellant
Vs.
M/s. Aarti Steels Ltd. Respondent
Present for the Appellant : Shri M.R. Sharma, DR
Present for the Respondent: Shri R. Santhanam, Advocate
Coram: HONBLE MR. S.K. MOHANTY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
Date of Hearing/Decision: 02.06.2015
FINAL ORDER NO. 53017-53018/2015
PER: S.K. MOHANTY
Revenue is in appeal against the impugned order dated 19.06.2009 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Ludhiana, wherein it has been held that cenvat credit of service tax paid on outward transportation is admissible as input service to the respondent herein. The said view was taken in the impugned order, based on the decision of Larger Bench of this Tribunal in the case of ABB Ltd., reported in 2009 (15) STR 23 (Tri.-LB).
2. The Revenue has preferred these appeals on the ground that the decision of the Larger Bench of Tribunal in the case of ABB Ltd has not been accepted by the Deptt. and the appeal filed against the orders of the Tribunal are pending before the Honble Karnataka High Court.
3. I have heard the Counsel for both the sides and perused the records.
4. I find that the grounds raised by the Revenue-appellant in the present appeals are not tenable, for the reason that the appeal filed against the Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of ABB Ltd. (supra) has been decided by the Honble Karnataka High Court in favour of the assessee [reported in 2011 (23) STR 97 (Kar.)], by holding that cenvat credit is permissible on the outward transportation of final product in view of the definition of input service contained in the Rule 2 (l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Since the appeal against the decision of Larger Bench has been decided by the Karnataka High Court in favour of the assessee, there is no merit in the present appeals filed by the Revenue. Further, I also find that the issue arising out of the present dispute is no more res-integra, in view of the judgment of Honble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Ambuja Cement vs. Union of India reported in 2009 (14) STR 3 (P & H), wherein while allowing the appeal in favour of the appellant, it has been held that service tax paid on the goods transport agency service will be available as cenvat credit.
5. In view of above, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order, and thus, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed.
(Dictated and pronounced in the open Court)
(S.K. MOHANTY)
MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
Anita
??
??
??
??
0 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