M/S. St. John Stevedoring & Yard vs Commissioner Of Central Exicse, ...
- CitationAppeal No.204/2013, dated 28.06.2013 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appe
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The wharfage charges paid by the appellant, being integrally connected with the output service of export, are eligible for Cenvat credit on the service tax paid thereon, where eligibility is the only question in dispute and the availing of the service for providing the output service is not in dispute. Where the adjudicating and appellate authorities have not appreciated the relevant documents on record, and those documents were examined in the audit that led to the show-cause notice, a conclusion that the documents are not available cannot stand.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.204/2013, dated 28.06.2013 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Madurai]
M/s. ST. JOHN STEVEDORING & YARD MANAGEMENT PVT. LTD. APPELLANT
Versus
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXICSE, TIRUNELVELI RESPONDENT
Appearance:
For the Appellant Shri J. Shankar Raman, [No vakalat on file] Adv.
For the Respondent Ms. Indira Sisupal, AC (AR)
CORAM:
Honble Shri D.N. Panda, Judicial Member
Date of hearing/decision 15-09-2015
FINAL ORDER NO. 41219 / 2015
Although, there was an adjournment application made, the matter being in a narrow compass, it was considered proper to dispose the appeal itself. Accordingly, adjournment application is rejected.
2. The only dispute in this appeal is whether the wharfage charges paid by the appellant and service tax paid thereon is admissible to be claimed as Cenvat credit, while there is no dispute as to the availing of such services for providing output service.
2. Learned Adjudicating authority questioned admissibility of the Cenvat credit. Learned Commissioner (Appeals) has recorded that documents were not available. It is strange that how he made such observation while the audit examined the relevant documents and made their observation to issue show-cause notice. Learned Commissioner is therefore incorrect not to come to a conclusion without appreciating the materials on record. There is great departure to audit observation and manner of examination done by both the authorities.
3. The wharfage charges being integrally connected with output service of export, there should not be any dispute to grant Cenvat credit on the service tax paid in respect of the said services since eligibility to the claim was only in question. Accordingly, appeal is allowed. (Dictated and pronounced in open court)
(D.N. PANDA) JUDICIAL MEMBER
ksr 21-09-2015
DRAFT Remarks
I II III
Date of dictation 15.09.2015
Draft Order - Date of typing 18.09.2015
Fair Order Typing 21.09.2015
Date of number and date of dispatch 22.09.2015
3 ST/42150/2013
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