M/S Gujarat Guardian Ltd vs Commissioner, Central Excise & Service ...

Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal9 June 2015

Case No.Appeal No.E/652/2012

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

The penalty imposed under Rule 15 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 cannot stand where, on the same issue in the appellant's own earlier case, the Tribunal had set aside the penalty while sustaining the duty demand; the penalty is therefore set aside on the strength of that earlier decision.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

In The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate TribunalWest Zonal Bench At Ahmedabad

Appeal No.E/652/2012 [Arising out of OIA No.CS/53/Surat-II/2012, dt.30.05.2012, passed by Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise & Customs, Surat]

M/s Gujarat Guardian Ltd Appellant

Commissioner, Central Excise & Service Tax, Surat Respondent

Represented by:

For Appellant: Shri S.J. Vyas, Advocate For Respondent: Shri Jitendra Nair, Authorised Representative

For approval and signature:

Honble Mr. H.K. Thakur, Member (Technical)

1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the No Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?

2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the No CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?

3. Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of Seen the order?

4. Whether order is to be circulated to the Departmental Yes authorities?

CORAM:

HONBLE MR. H.K. THAKUR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

Date of Hearing/Decision:09.06.2015

Order No. A/10775 / 2015, dt.09.06.2015

Per: H.K. Thakur

When this case was called out for hearing, Shri S.J. Vyas, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Appellant argued that the issue is regarding availing CENVAT Credit on the services availed at their guest house and residential colonies. The learned Advocate furnished a copy of Order No.A/1585/WZB/AHD/2012, dt.23.10.2012 in Appeal No.961/2011 passed by this Bench in the Appellants own case. It was his case that in the order dt.23.10.2012, the issue has been decided against the Appellant, but as per Para 7 of this order, penalty has been set aside. It was, therefore, argued by learned Advocate that the penalty imposed in the present proceedings may also be set aside.

2. Heard both the sides and perused the case records. In view of the Order dt.23.10.2012 passed on the same issue, the present appeal is also allowed only to the extent that the penalty imposed under Rule 15 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944 is set aside.

(Dictated and pronounced in Court)

(H.K. Thakur) Member (Technical)

cbb

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