M/S. Gujarat Guardian Limited vs Commissioner Of Central Excise & S.T., ...
- CitationAppeal No. : E/1010/2011
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The question of CENVAT credit on service tax paid for operation and maintenance of a wind mill located away from the factory premises is governed by the decision of the Bombay High Court in CCE & Cus., Aurangabad vs. Endurance Technology Pvt. Limited, which both sides accepted as covering the present appeal; the appeal is therefore allowed on the basis of that principle, and the tribunal's reasoning rests on acceptance of that binding position rather than independent analysis of the statutory question.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
(Arising out of OIA-BC/137/SURAT-II/2011 dated 22.06.2011, Passed by Commissioner (Appeals) Central Excise, & S.T., Surat)
M/s. Gujarat Guardian Limited : Appellant (s)
VERSUS
Commissioner of Central Excise & S.T., Surat : Respondent (s)
Represented by :
For Appellant (s) : Shri S.J. Vyas, Advocate For Respondent (s) : Shri J. Nair, Authorised Representative
For approval and signature :
Mr. H.K. Thakur, Honble Member (Technical)
1 Whether Press Reporter 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 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
CORAM :
Mr. H.K. Thakur, Honble Member (Technical)
Date of Hearing / Decision : 26.06.2015
ORDER No. A/10881/2015 Dated 26.06.2015
Per : Mr. H.K. Thakur;
This appeal has been filed by the appellant with respect to OIA No. BC/137/SURAT-II/2011 dated 22.06.2011. The issue involved is whether the appellant is eligible to CENVAT credit of service tax paid on services of operation and maintenance of Wind Mill located for away from the factory premises.
2. Shri S.J. Vyas, (Advocate) appearing on behalf of the appellant argued that the issue has been covered by the judgment of Bombay High Court in the case of CCE & Cus., Aurangabad vs. Endurance Technology Pvt. Limited [2015 (6) TMI 82- Bombay High Court]. He further relied upon the case law of The India Cement Limited & Others vs. CCE, Salem & Others [2015 (6) TMI 580 CESTAT Chennai], where CESTAT Chennai Bench has allowed the similar appeals of the appellant in view of the judgment of Bombay High Court in the case of CCE & Cus., Aurangabad vs. Endurance Technology Pvt. Limited (supra).
3. Both sides agree that the present appeal is covered by the case law of CCE & Cus., Aurangabad vs. Endurance Technology Pvt. Limited (supra). Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellant is allowed with consequential relief, if any.
(Order dictated and pronounced in the Court)
(H.K. Thakur) Member (Technical) .KL
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