Pudumjee Inds. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, Pune I

(Arising out Order-in-Appeal No. PIA/VSK/248/2009 dated 26.11.2009 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Pune I)

For approval and signature: Honble Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial)

1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see No 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 No CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?

3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy Yes of the Order?

4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental Yes authorities?

Pudumjee Inds. Ltd. Appellant

Vs.

Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune I Respondent

Appearance:

None for the appellant Shri H.M. Dikshit, AC (AR) for the respondent

CORAM:

Honble Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial)

Date of hearing : 20.03.2015 Date of decision : 20.03.2015

O R D E R No:..

When this appeal was called up, none appeared on behalf of the appellant despite notice.

2. On perusal of the record, I find that the appeal itself can be disposed of without assistance of the appellant/representative. Accordingly, I take up the appeal for disposal.

3. Ld. Departmental Representative brings to my notice the issue regarding Cenvat credit availed on service tax paid on outdoor catering service from amount recovered from employees.

4. On perusal of the records, I find it so. Both the lower authorities have held the appellant is ineligible to the Cenvat credit of the service tax on the amount recovered from their employees. The issue is no more res integra as settled by the Hon'ble High Court in Ultra Tech Cement Ltd. 2010 (260) ELT 369 (Bom). Accordingly, I do not find any merit in the appeal filed by the appellant. The same is rejected.

5. In my considered view, the confirmation of demand along with interest needs to be upheld. At the same time, the issue is of interpretation of penalty imposed by the Adjudicating Authority equivalent to the amount of confirmed amount is unwarranted and is liable to be set aside and I do so.

6. Appeal is disposed of as above.

(Pronounced in Court)

(M.V. Ravindran) Member (Judicial)

//SR

2