M/S Market Creators Ltd vs Cce Vadodara-I
- CitationAppeal No.ST/10323/2014-SM
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where the appellant is neither registered as an input service distributor nor centrally registered at the premises concerned, CENVAT credit of service tax paid on input services availed at those unregistered premises, from which no output services are provided, is not admissible; a Tribunal bound by its own earlier decision in the same appellant's case, on identical facts and issue, must follow that decision and cannot interfere with an order of the Commissioner (Appeals) rejecting the credit.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Appeal No.ST/10323/2014-SM [Arising out of OIA No.VAD-EXCUS-001-467-2013-14, dt.08.11.2013, passed by Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs (Appeals), Vadodara]
M/s Market Creators Ltd Appellant
Vs
CCE Vadodara-I Respondent
Represented by:
For Assessee: Shri H.D. Dave, Adv.
For Revenue: Shri S.K. Shukla, A.R.
For approval and signature:
Mr. P.K. Das, Honble Member (Judicial)
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 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:
MR. P.K. DAS, HONBLE MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
Date of Hearing/Decision:02.01.15
Order No. A/10005 / 2015, dt.02.01.2015
Per: P.K. Das
1. After hearing both the sides and on perusal of the records, I find that the issue involved in this case is whether the CENVAT Credit of Service Tax paid on input services availed at the appellants unregistered premises from which no output services are provided would be admissible to the appellant or not. The appellant is neither registered as an input service distributor nor centrally registered at their Vadodara office.
2. The learned Authorised Representative for the Revenue submits that on the identical issue, the Tribunal in the appellants own case, Market Creators Ltd Vs CCE Vadodara 2014 (36) STR 386 (Tri-Ahmd) held against the appellant. On a query from the Bench, the ld.Advocate fairly submits that the order of the Tribunal was challenged before Honble High Court.
3. In view of the above, following the earlier decision in the appellants own case, I do not find any reason to interfere in the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellant is rejected.
(Dictated & Pronounced in Court)
(P.K. Das) Member (Judicial)
cbb
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