Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... vs M/S. Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd
- CitationAppeal No.123/2013 (M-II), dated 26.03.2013 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Cent
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The order, read as a whole, rests on the following reasoning. Where the Commissioner (Appeals) has, on the material before him, found that the disputed services were input services used in the manufacture of the respondent and has decided the input service distribution by reference to CBEC Circular No. 97/8/2007 dated 23.08.2007, and where Revenue has advanced no contrary material and no contention that the circular was misapplied, the Tribunal will not disturb those findings; an appeal that fails to impeach the appellate order on any material ground is to be dismissed.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.123/2013 (M-II), dated 26.03.2013 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax (Appeals), Chennai]
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CHENNAI-II APPELLANT
Versus
M/s. GODREJ & BOYCE MFG. CO. LTD. RESPONDENT
Appearance:
For the Appellant Shri L. Paneerselvan, AC(AR)
For the Respondent None
CORAM:
Honble Shri D.N. Panda, Judicial Member
Date of hearing/decision 04-09-2015
FINAL ORDER NO. 41176 / 2015 Learned counsel seeks adjournment on the ground that her senior is engaged otherwise. From para 7 of the appellate order a short point arose is as to whether the services in question used were eligible as input services for set off of Cenvat credit of service tax paid thereon against ultimate tax liability.
2. Learned Commissioner (Appeals) in paras 08 to 16 of his order has categorically found that there was no contrary material from Revenue to deny credit of tax paid thereon as input services listed in the Table at page 1 of his order which were used in the manufacture of the respondent. He therefore decided the input service distribution in the light of CBEC Circular No.97/8/2007, dated 23.08.2007. Department has no contention to disturb the conclusion of Commissioner (Appeals) in that behalf bring out that use of the content of the circular was erroneous.
2. When above findings of Commissioner (Appeals) exist and no material comes up from Revenue to impeach the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), Revenue appeal is dismissed. (Dictated and pronounced in open court)
(D.N. PANDA) JUDICIAL MEMBER
ksr 10-09-2015
DRAFT Remarks
I II III
Date of dictation 04.09.2015
Draft Order - Date of typing 06.09.2015
Fair Order Typing 10.09.2015
Date of number and date of dispatch 11.11.09.2015
3 E/41538/2013
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