Malbar Cements Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ...

[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No 415-2006 dated 16/11/2006 passed by CCE(Appeals) Cochin]

For approval and signature:

HON'BLE Shri B.S.V.MURTHY, TECHNICAL MEMBER

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?

MALBAR CEMENTS LTD PALLIPPURAM, CHERTHALLA Appellant(s)

Versus

Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax COCHIN-CCE NULL C R BUILDING, I S PRESS ROAD, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN, - 682018 KERALA Respondent(s)

Appearance:

Shri Sandip Gopal Krishna, Advocate MENON & PAI P.B. NO.1911 IS PRESS ROAD, COCHIN - 682018 KERALA For the Appellant

Shri Mohd. Yusuf, Addl. Commissioner(AR) For the Respondent

Date of Hearing: 23/01/2015

Date of Decision: 23/01/2015

CORAM:

HON'BLE Shri B.S.V.MURTHY, TECHNICAL MEMBER

Final Order No. 20308 / 2015

Per : B.S.V.MURTHY

The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of cement from clinker. CENVAT credit of Rs.33,027/- availed on goods transport service from February 2005 to December 2005 has been denied and demand with interest and penalty of Rs.10,000/- has been imposed.

2. After hearing both the sides, I find that in this case the show-cause notice itself admits that the CENVAT credit is proposed to be denied on the service tax paid on outward transportation for removal of goods from the factory. During the relevant time, the definition of input services provided for CENVAT credit of service tax paid and service tax incurred for outward transportation from the place of removal. Therefore, the service is clearly covered by the definition of input service. Moreover the issue is also covered by the decision of the Honble High Court of Karnataka in the case of CCE&ST, LTU, Bangalore Vs. ABB Ltd. [2011(23) STR 97 (Kar.)]. In view of the above, the appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any, to the appellant.

(Order pronounced in open court)

B.S.V.MURTHY TECHNICAL MEMBER Raja.

2