Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + HC Central Excise - 2019 (7) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (7) TMI 1175 - HC - Central ExciseMaintainability of appeal - Section 35-G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - whether the credit availed of, by the assessee/respondent in the facts of the present case was authorized by law or the rules, especially Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004? HELD THAT:- According to the agreement of the parties, the assessee manufactured articles which were ultimately cleared by its principal i.e. M/s. Parle Products Pvt. Ltd. There is no dispute that Central Excise levy was borne by Parle. The assessee was merely authorized to manufacture the goods. So far as provisions of Service tax is concerned, this Court notices that there were two components. One, job work itself i.e. manufacture of confectionery and biscuits, which was the provision of service, i.e. the main service to M/s. Parle Products Pvt. Ltd. and secondly, the transportation services. It is the second component which is in issue in the present case. There is nothing either on record or in the show cause notice or even in the Order in Original which suggests that the agreement, which parties entered into whereby service tax was to be borne by the assessee and input credit was to be claimed by it, was prohibited in law - Furthermore, it is not revenue’s case that M/s. Parle Products Pvt. Ltd. availed of, such Cenvat credit as a matter of fact. This Court is of the opinion that no question of law arises - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
|