Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... vs The Paper Products
- CitationAppeal No. 63
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The question is whether the respondent is entitled to CENVAT credit of service tax paid on catering services, mediclaim policy, car repair and hire charges, air travel agency services, and octroi services. Where the tribunal finds that each of these services is covered by existing decisions of the Courts and the Tribunal, it holds that the credit claims are governed by those decisions and the Commissioner's order applying them stands.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 63 & 64/2010 dated 29/09/2009 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax (Appeals-I & III), 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?
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, Customs and Service Tax HYDERABAD-I KENDRIYA SHULK BHAVAN, L.B STADIUM ROAD, BASHEERBAGH, HYDERABAD, - 500004. ANDHRA PRADESH Appellant(s)
Versus
THE PAPER PRODUCTS IDA, BOLLARAM, JINNARAM MANDAL, MEDAK DIST AP Respondent(s)
Appearance:
Mr. Mohd. Yusuf, AC (AR) For the Appellant
Ms. Shradha, Advocate PDS Legal 14, Mittal Chambers, 1st Floor, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021. For the Respondent Date of Hearing: 27/05/2015
Date of Decision: 27/05/2015
CORAM:
HON'BLE SMT. ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
Final Order No. 21196-21197 / 2015
Per : ARCHANA WADHWA
The issue involved in the present appeals of the Revenue is as to whether the respondent is entitled to the CENVAT credit of service tax paid on catering services, mediclaim policy, car repair charges, car hire charges, air travel agency services, and octroi services.
2. I find that all the said services are covered by one or the other decisions of the Courts as also of the Tribunal. One such reference can be made to the Honble Karnataka High Court in the case of Commissioner Vs. Stanzen Toyotetsu India (P) Ltd.: 2011 (23) STR 444 (Kar.). By following the same, I find no infirmity in the order of the Commissioner and accordingly reject the appeals filed by the Revenue in both the matters.
(Order pronounced in open court)
ARCHANA WADHWA JUDICIAL MEMBER rv 2
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