Commissioner Of Central Excise vs M/S. Bajaj Hindustan Ltd

[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No. 22/CE/ALLD/2013 dated 13.08.2013 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax (Appeals), Allahabad (UP) ]

For approval and signature:

Honble Mr Ashok Jindal, 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 of Central Excise Appellants

& Service Tax, Allahabad (UP)

Vs.

M/s. Bajaj Hindustan Ltd. Respondent

Appearance:

Shri G R Singh, AR for the Appellants

Shri P K Mittal, Advocate for the Respondent

CORAM:

Hon'ble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)

Date of Hearing /decision: 19.6.2015

FINAL ORDER NO. A/ 51972 /2015-Ex(SM)

Per Ashok Jindal :

The Revenue is in appeal against the impugned order wherein the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has allowed input service credit on construction services for construction of dormitories to house the officials.

2. The facts of the case are that the respondent is manufacturer of sugar and availed construction services for construction of dormitory to house officials in the factory itself. Revenue is of the view that the said construction services does not qualify as input service as per Rule 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Therefore, they are not entitled to avail benefit of Cenvat credit. A show cause notice was issued to the respondent. Adjudicating authority confirmed the demand by disallowing Cenvat credit. On appeal, before the Learned Commissioner (Appeals), the Learned Commissioner allowed Cenvat credit. Against the said order, Revenue is in appeal before me.

3. Heard the parties. Considered the submissions.

4. In respondents own case, this Tribunal has held that the respondent is entitled to take Cenvat credit on construction services for dormitories in the factory vide Final order No. 51791/2015- Ex(SM) dated 08/06/2015. Therefore, I hold that the respondent is entitled to take Cenvat credit on construction services for dormitory in the factory. In these terms, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order, the same is upheld. The appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed deserves no merit.

( Operative part of the order pronounced in the open court )

( Ashok Jindal ) Member(Judicial)

ss

2