Kaveri Ultra Polymers Pvt. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ...
- CitationAppeal No. 99/2011
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The tribunal treats it as settled that courier services used in the appellant's business qualify as input services for cenvat credit, so the only live question is whether the appellant has shown that these particular services were used in the course of its business. Because that is a disputed question of fact, the order impugned on the credit denial cannot stand without a verification of the evidence, and the matter must be remanded to the original adjudicating authority to allow the appellant to produce evidence in support of its claim.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 99/2011 dated 29/03/2011 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore]
For approval and signature:
HON'BLE Mrs. 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? 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
Kaveri Ultra Polymers Pvt. Ltd. #113 B, Bommasandra Industrial Area, Bangalore - 560 099 Appellant(s)
Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax Bangalore-I Post Box No. 5400, CR Buildings, Bangalore 560 001 Karnataka Respondent(s)
Appearance:
Mrs. Vijaya Prakash, Advocate 543, 12th Cross, 8th Main J.P Nagar 2nd Phase, Bangalore 560 078 Karnataka For the Appellant
Mr. N. Jagdish, AR For the Respondent
Date of Hearing: 29/05/2015 Date of Decision: 29/05/2015 CORAM:
HON'BLE Mrs. ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
Final Order No. 21232 / 2015
Per : ARCHANA WADHWA
The issue in the present appeal relates to availability of cenvat credit of Rs. 12,032/- (Rupees Twelve Thousand and Thirty Two only) for the period May 2008 to July 2009 availed on the Courier Services. As per the appellant the said services were utilized for sending purchase orders for procurement of raw-materials as well as for documents to be deposited by the customers in connection with clearing their final products.
2. Learned advocate appearing for the appellant submits that there is no dispute in law that such Courier Services are required to be held as input services for the purpose of cenvat credit. However the appellants have not been able to establish that such services were used in the course of their business. It is seen that the appellants have also submitted in Ground No. 5 of their appeal memorandum that had an opportunity been given to them, they would have proved that the same is in relation to their business only.
3. Inasmuch as dispute requires factual verification, I set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the original adjudicating authority, with directions to the appellant to produce evidence to support their stand. Appeal is thus allowed by way of remand.
(Order pronounced in open court)
(ARCHANA WADHWA) JUDICIAL 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