Commissioner Of Customs, Central ... vs Jocil Ltd
- CitationAppeal No. 37-2012
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
A manufacturer exporting goods is entitled to take CENVAT credit of service tax paid on goods transport agency services used to carry the goods from the factory gate to the port from which they are exported, the question being settled by earlier Tribunal decisions that the Tribunal followed without independent reasoning.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 37-2012 (G)CE dated 22/08/2012 passed by CC&C(Appeals), Guntur]
For approval and signature:
HON'BLE SHRI 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?
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, Central Excise and Service Tax GUNTUR NULL P.B.NO. 331...C.R.BUILDING, KANNAVARI THOTA, GUNTUR, - 520004 ANDHRA PRADESH Appellant(s)
Versus
JOCIL LTD DOKIPARRU, GUNTUR DIST Respondent(s)
Appearance:
Shri S. Teli, Deputy Commissioner(AR) For the Appellant
Shri B.N. Gururaj, Advocate For the Respondent
Date of Hearing: 24/06/2015
Date of Decision: 24/06/2015
CORAM:
HON'BLE SMT. ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
Final Order No. 21426 / 2015
Per : ARCHANA WADHWA
Being aggrieved with the order passed by the Commissioner(Appeals), Revenue has filed the present appeal.
2. After hearing both the sides duly represented by Shri S. Teli, Deputy Commissioner(AR) for the Revenue and Shri B.N. Gururaj, Advocate for the respondent, I find that the issue involved is as to whether the respondents are entitled to avail the CENVAT credit of service tax paid on GTA services utilised by them for transportation of the goods from factory gate to the port area from where the same are further exported. I find the issue is no more res integra and stands settled by various decisions of the Tribunal. Some references can be made to the Tribunal decisions in the case of CC&CE, Hyderabad-IV Vs. Pokarna Ltd. [2013(292) ELT 316 (Tri. Bang.)] and in the case of Modern Petrofils Vs. CCE, Vadodara [2010(253) ELT 609 (Tri. Ahmd.)]. Inasmuch as the issue is decided, I find no infirmity in the view of the Commissioner(Appeals). Revenues appeal is accordingly rejected.
(Order pronounced and dictated in open court)
ARCHANA WADHWA JUDICIAL MEMBER Raja 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