Commissioner Of Customs And Service ... vs Apotex Research Pvt. Ltd
- CitationAppeal No. 148/2010 dated 28/08/2010 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore]
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Tribunal reaches its conclusion by reference to the respondent's own earlier decisions, which the appellant Revenue had relied on, and by finding nothing wrong with the impugned orders on examination of the orders-in-original and orders-in-appeal; it gives no independent legal reasoning of its own on the admissibility of refund of cenvat credit under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 for the listed services. The only reasoning present is that where the same assessee has previously been allowed such benefits by final orders of the Tribunal, and the impugned orders apply the facts correctly in terms of law, those orders are not to be interfered with. This is a decision resting on consistency with the assessee's own prior final orders and on the absence of error in the lower authorities' application of law to the facts, not on any stated principle of cenvat credit refund law.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No. 148/2010 dated 28/08/2010 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore]
For approval and signature:
HON'BLE SHRI B.S.V. MURTHY, TECHNICAL 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 Customs and Service Tax, Bangalore C.R. Building, Queens Road, P.B. No. 5400, Bangalore 560 001 Karnataka Appellant(s) Versus Apotex Research Pvt. Ltd. Plot No.1A, Bommasandra Industrial Area, Bangalore - 560 099 Respondent(s)
Appearance:
Mr. S. Sivakumar, Advocate No. 1, Seventh Main, Second Stage, Indiranagar, Bangalore 560 038 For the Appellant
Mr. Pakshi Rajan, AR For the Respondent
Date of Hearing: 21/01/2015 Date of Decision: 21/01/2015
CORAM:
HON'BLE SHRI B.S.V. MURTHY, TECHNICAL MEMBER
Final Order Nos. 20114 - 20115 / 2015
Per: B.S.V. MURTHY
Revenue is in appeal against the impugned order on the ground that the refund of cenvat credit in respect of various services such as Technical Testing and Analysis Service, Supply of Manpower, Maintenance Service, Security Service, Advertisement Service, Management Consultancy, Transport Service, Facility Construction Service etc. under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 is admissible. The ground taken by the Revenue is that the learned Commissioner has relied upon the decision in the case of Convergeys India Pvt. Ltd. of the Tribunal and Revenue has filed the appeal against this decision. However on behalf of the appellants the Final Orders No. 26617-26629 dated 14.10.2013 and Final Order No. 22070/2014 dated 21.11.2014 were relied upon to submit that in the appellants own case, such benefits have been allowed. On going through the orders cited by the respondents and on going through the orders-in-appeal and order-in-original, I could find nothing wrong in the impugned orders which are perfectly legal and have applied the facts of the case correctly in terms of law. Therefore I do not see any reason for interfering with the impugned orders. Accordingly appeals filed by the Revenue are rejected.
(Order pronounced and dictated in open court)
(B.S.V. MURTHY) TECHNICAL MEMBER
iss
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