9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2012 (11) TMI 1003 - AT - Central ExciseAvailment of cenvat credit - Service tax paid on customs house agent services - Held that - Following decision in the case of Heubach Colour Pvt. Ltd. 2012 (7) TMI 828 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD - Decided against Revenue.
Issues involved: Availment of cenvat credit on service tax paid on customs house agent services for goods cleared from factory premises.
Analysis: The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT AHMEDABAD addresses the issue of whether the appellant could avail cenvat credit on service tax paid on customs house agent services for goods cleared from the factory premises. The adjudicating authority initially held that the appellant was not eligible for the credit. However, after considering the matter on merits, the authority dropped the proceedings initiated by the show cause notice and allowed the cenvat credit to the respondent. The Revenue, aggrieved by this decision, filed an appeal before the first appellate authority. The first appellate authority, relying on various decisions of the Tribunal, upheld the order of the adjudicating authority. The Tribunal noted that the issue was no longer res-integra as the first appellate authority had based its decision on previous Tribunal judgments. Specifically, the Tribunal mentioned a recent case involving Heubach Colour Pvt. Ltd., where the judgment relied upon by the first appellate authority was followed, and the appeal by the Revenue was rejected. Given the precedents and consistency in decisions, the Tribunal found that the appeal by the Revenue in this case was liable to be rejected. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the impugned order as correct, legal, and free from any infirmity. In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment affirms the decision regarding the availment of cenvat credit on service tax paid on customs house agent services for goods cleared from the factory premises. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of precedent and consistency in its decision-making process, ultimately rejecting the Revenue's appeal and upholding the order in favor of the respondent.
|
