Commissioner , Ltu , Chennai vs M/S. Rane Trw Steering Systems Ltd
- CitationAppeal Nol.182/2010
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The appellate authority's direction that the claimant must produce the documents satisfying the conditions of the Board's Circular before the adjudicating authority is upheld, since the claim of compliance with the circular was not substantiated before the Commissioner (Appeals); the appellate authority's finding remains subject to verification of the relevant evidence, and the Revenue's appeal is dismissed on that basis.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal Nol.182/2010, dated 18.10.02010 passed by the Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise (Appeals), Trichy]
COMMISSIONER , LTU , CHENNAI APPELLANT
Versus
M/s. Rane TRW Steering Systems Ltd. RESPONDENT
Appearance:
For the Appellant Shri M. Rammohan Rao, Adv.
For the Respondent Shri M. Karthikeyan, [No vakalat on file] AC (AR)
CORAM:
Honble Shri D.N. Panda, Judicial Member
Date of hearing/decision 13-08-2015
FINAL ORDER NO.41231/2015
When the respondent took credit of the service tax paid on transporting the goods out of the factory for delivery at the premises of the buyer such credit was denied by the Adjudicating authority. But the appellate authority held that outward transportation being part of the business acivity, the service tax paid thereon is admissible to be claimed as Cenvat credit.
2. Revenue supports the Adjudication order.
3. Respondent submits that when it complied with the Boards Circular No.97/6/2007, dated 23.08.2007, there is no dispute about the contract for delivery of the goods at the buyers premises. There should not be denial of Cenvat credit on the outward freight following the decision of the Honble High Court of Bombay in the case of M/s. Coca Cola India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-III reported in 2009 (15) S.T.R.657 (Bom.) and also following the decision of the High Court of Karnataka in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax (LTU), Bangalore Vs ABB Ltd. reported in 2011 (23) S.T.R.97 (Kar.) and by High Court of Madras in the case of The Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai-II Commissionerate Vs M/s. Borg Warner Morse Tec Murugappa Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. reported in 2015-TIOL-831-HC-MAD-CX.
4. When the claim of the respondent was that it satisfies the requirement of the circular, it should have produced the document before learned Commissioner (Appeals) for examination. But that was not done. Therefore, that Authority has directed lower authority to verify relevant evidence for the period Apr.06 to Mar.07. Therefore, his order does not appear to be incorrect. Accordingly, subject to carrying out of the direction of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) his finding does not call for interference. Revenue appeal is thus dismissed. (Dictated and pronounced in open court)
(D.N. PANDA) JUDICIAL MEMBER
ksr 21-09-2015
DRAFT Remarks
I II III
Date of dictation 13.08.2015
Draft Order - Date of typing 21.09.2015
Fair Order Typing 22.09.2015
Date of number and date of dispatch 22.09.2015
4 E/00057/2011
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