Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... vs M/S. Aurobindo Pharma Ltd

[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 7 & 8/2009 (H-I) CE dated 30/01/2009 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax (Appeals-), Hyderabad.]

For approval and signature:

HON'BLE SMT. ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER

1 Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? No 2 Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? No 3 Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order? Seen 4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities? Yes

Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax HYDERABAD-I KENDRIYA SHULK BHAVAN, L.B STADIUM ROAD, BASHEERBAGH, HYDERABAD  500 004. ANDHRA PRADESH Appellant(s)

Versus

M/s. AUROBINDO PHARMA LTD UNIT-V, PLOT No. 75 to 91 IDA, PASHAMYLARAM, MEDAK DIST Respondent(s)

Appearance:

Dr. A. K. Nigam, AC (AR) For the Appellant

None For the Respondent

Date of Hearing: 05/02/2015

Date of Decision: 05/02/2015

CORAM:

HON'BLE SMT. ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Final Order No. 20243-20244 / 2015

Per : ARCHANA WADHWA

After rejecting the request for adjournment made on behalf of the respondent, I proceed to decide both the appeals, inasmuch as the issue stands covered by the Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal.

2. After hearing the learned AR and after going through the impugned order of the Commissioner (A), I find that the issue involved is availability of CENVAT credit on service tax paid on the outdoor catering service received by the respondent. Commissioner (A), while allowing the assessees appeal have relied upon the Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Bombay vs. M/s. GTC Industries Ltd. reported as 2008 (12) S.T.R. 468 (LB).

3. Revenue in their memo of appeal have not contested the fact that the Larger Bench decision is applicable but submits that the said decision has not been accepted by the Revenue and an appeal there against has been filed before the Honble Supreme Court. Learned AR has not been able to place before me any decision of the apex court reversing the said Larger Bench decision. There is also no stay of operation of the said decision. In fact, I find that there are other decisions of the Tribunal which have followed the said Larger Bench judgment and have granted relief to the assessee.

4. In view of the above, I am of the opinion that there is no infirmity in the impugned order of the Commissioner (A). Accordingly, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are rejected.

(Order pronounced in open court)

ARCHANA WADHWA JUDICIAL MEMBER rv 2