M/S. Uflex Ltd vs C.C.E. Noida
- CitationAppeal No. E/2937/2009-EX(SM)
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where High Courts take contrary views on whether outward transportation services are input services for Cenvat credit and the jurisdictional High Court has not expressed a view, the Tribunal is bound to follow the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal on the point, in preference to the conflicting High Court decisions.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 204-CE/APPL/Noida/2009 dated 30.07.2009 by the Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax (Appeals), Noida].
For approval and signature:
Honble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)
1 Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the 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 the Order?
4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
M/s. Uflex Ltd. .Appellants
Vs.
C.C.E. Noida .Respondent
Appearance:
Shri Arvind Arora, Advocate for the Appellant
Shri R.K. Mishra, DR for the Respondent
CORAM:
Hon'ble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)
Date of Hearing: 15.06.2015
FINAL ORDER NO. 51895/2015-EX(SM)
Per Ashok Jindal:
The short issue involved in the matter is that whether appellant is entitled to take Cenvat Credit on outward transportation services during the period January 2005 - December 2006 or not as input services.
2. The Ld. Counsel for the appellant relied on the decision of Honble High Court of Karnataka in the case of CCE & ST Bangalore Vs. ABB Ltd.-2011 (23) STR 97 (Kar.) and in the case of CCE Vs. Parth Poly Wooven Pvt. Ltd.-2012 (25) STR 4 (Guj).
3. On the other hand Ld. AR relied on the decisions of the Honble Kolkata High court in the case of CCE Kolkata Vs. Vesuvious India Ltd.-2014 (34) STR 26 (Cal.)
4. Heard the parties. Considered the submissions.
5. As there are contrary views of the various High Courts and no view has been expressed by jurisdictional High Court, in these circumstances, I follow the decision of Larger Bench of this Tribunal in the case of ABB Ltd. (Supra). In these circumstances, I hold that as per the Larger Bench of this Tribunal the appellant is entitled to take Cenvat Credit on outward transportation services during the period January 2005 to December 2006.
6. With these terms by setting aside the impugned order appeal is allowed with consequential relief if any.
(Dictated and pronounced in the open court)
(Ashok Jindal) Member (Judicial)
Bhanu
2
E/2937/2009-EX(SM)
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