Delphi Automotive Systems Pvt Ltd vs Cce, Bangalore(Adjn)
- CitationAppeal No. 191-2007
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The eligibility of CENVAT credit on service tax paid for outdoor catering and tour and travel agent services is to be decided in the same manner as the precedent Tribunal decision in the appellant's own earlier case (Final Order No. 21936/2014), which directed verification of whether any amount was recovered from employees towards catering service and calculation of the admissible credit where such recovery is shown.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 191-2007 dated 31/08/2007 passed by CCE(Appeals-I), 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?
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?
DELPHI AUTOMOTIVE SYSTEMS PVT LTD. PLOT NO.98A, PHASE II INDUSTRIAL AREA, JIGANI BANGALORE Appellant(s)
Versus
CCE, BANGALORE(ADJN)
Respondent(s)
Appearance:
Ms. Neetu James, Advocate For the Appellant
Dr. A.K. Nigam, Addl. Commissioner(AR) For the Respondent
Date of Hearing: 06/03/2015
Date of Decision: 06/03/2015
CORAM:
HON'BLE SHRI B.S.V.MURTHY, TECHNICAL MEMBER
Final Order No. 20586 / 2015
Per : B.S.V.MURTHY
The learned counsel submits that the issue involved in this case is eligibility of the appellant for CENVAT credit of the service tax paid on outdoor catering service and tour and travel agent service. She submits that in the case of the very same appellant on the very same issues, the matter had come up before this Tribunal and this Tribunal vide Final Order No.21936/2014 dt. 24/10/2014 had remanded the matter to verify whether any amount was recovered from the employees towards catering service and for calculating the admissible amount if any amount has been received and allowing the benefit in the case of the other service. Following the precedent Tribunals decision, in this case also, the matter is remanded to the original adjudicating authority to undertake fresh adjudication proceedings following the precedent decision of the Tribunal cited above. Appeal is disposed of by way of remand.
(Order pronounced and dictated in open court)
B.S.V.MURTHY TECHNICAL 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