Ned Energy Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs ,Central ...
- CitationAppeal No. 28-2012 dated 29/02/2012 passed by CC&CE(Appeals), Hyderabad]
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The CENVAT credit of service tax on rent-a-cab services availed to transport employees between their residences and the factory is admissible, the question being governed by the decisions of the Karnataka High Court in Commissioner v. Stanzen Toyotetsu India Pvt. Ltd. and CCE, Bangalore-I v. Bell Ceramics Ltd., which both sides accepted as deciding the issue; the impugned denial of credit and the consequential penalty are therefore set aside.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 28-2012 dated 29/02/2012 passed by CC&CE(Appeals), Hyderabad]
For approval and signature:
HON'BLE SMT. ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
1 Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? No 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? Seen 4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities? Yes
NED ENERGY LTD SURVEY NO.823 & 827, MEDCHAL VILLAGE & MANDAL, RANGA REDDY DIST, AP Appellant(s)
Versus
Commissioner of Customs ,Central Excise and Service Tax HYDERABAD-IV NULL POSNETT BHAWAN, TILAK ROAD, RAMKOTI, HYDERABAD, - 500001 ANDHRA PRADESH Respondent(s)
Appearance:
Shri S. R. Madhavamurthy, Consultant For the Appellant
Shri Pakshi Rajan, Asst. Commissioner(AR) For the Respondent
Date of Hearing: 08/07/2015
Date of Decision: 08/07/2015
CORAM:
HON'BLE SMT. ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
Final Order No. 21520 / 2015
Per : ARCHANA WADHWA
The appellant is against denial of CENVAT credit of service tax of Rs.69,284/- availed by the appellant during the period July 2009 to March 2010 in respect of rent-a-cab service availed by them for transporting the employees from their residential premises to the factory premises as also to the imposition of penalty of Rs.10,000/-.
2. Both sides agree that the issue stands decided by the Honble Karnataka High Court in the case of Commissioner Vs. Stanzen Toyotetsu India Pvt. Ltd. [2011(23) STR 444 (Kar.)]. A further reference can be made to another decision of the Honble Karnataka High Court in the case of CCE, Bangalore I Vs. Bell Ceramics Ltd. [2012(25) STR 428 (Kar.)].
3. By following the said decisions, I set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief to the appellant. (Order pronounced and dictated in open court)
ARCHANA WADHWA JUDICIAL MEMBER
Raja..
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