The Commissioner Of Central Excise & ... vs M/S. Essar Steel Ltd

[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No 72/2009 dated 27/04/2009 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax (Appeals), Visakhapatnam.]

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? No 3 Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order? No 4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities? Yes

The Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Division-III, 4th Floor, Srinivasa Plaza, Isukanthota Junction. VISAKHAPATNAM  530 017. Appellant(s)

Versus

M/s. ESSAR STEEL LTD (Formerly known as HY-GRADE Pellets Ltd.) Scindia Road, New Flyover, Visakhapatnam  530 034. Respondent(s)

Appearance:

Mr. Pakshi Rajan, (AR) For the Appellant

None For the Respondent

Date of Hearing: 05/02/2015

Date of Decision: 05/02/2015

CORAM:

HON'BLE SMT. ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Final Order No. 20235 / 2015

Per : ARCHANA WADHWA

Being aggrieved with the order passed by the Commissioner (A), Revenue has filed the present appeal.

2. The dispute relates to availability of CENVAT credit of service tax paid on various services like CA service, consultant engineer service, courier services, manpower recruitment or supply agency service, outdoor catering services, rent-a-cab service and technical testing and certification service.

3. I find that all the services have been held to be a cenvatable in one or the other decisions of the Tribunal or of the High Courts. Reliance can be made to Karnatakas High Court decision in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore-III vs. Stanzen Toyotetsu India (P) Ltd.: 2011 (23) S.T.R. 444 (Kar.) and to the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of C.C.E. vs. Ultratech Cement Ltd.: 2010 (20) S.T.R. 577 (Bom.).

4. Accordingly, I find no infirmity in the impugned order of Commissioner (A). Revenues appeal is accordingly rejected.

(Order pronounced and dictated in open court)

ARCHANA WADHWA JUDICIAL MEMBER rv 2