TMI Blog2010 (11) TMI 224X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ision in the case of CCE, Nagpur v. Ultratech Cement Ltd. (2010 -TMI - 78203 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT) Held that: the appellants are required to show that the outdoor services are forming part of the cost of production - The appellant have produced a certificate issued by the Cost Accountant, which was at no stage produced before the lower authorities, the same is required to be examined - Therefore, the case is remanded to the lower adjudicating authority for limited purpose of examining whether the outdoor catering services are forming part of the cost of production - Reasonable opportunity of personal hearing may be granted - E/1447/2009 - . A/678/2010-WZB/C-IV(SMB) - Dated:- 23-11-2010 - Shri S.K. Gaule, JJ REPRESENTED BY : Ms. Purn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... In support of their contention they have placed reliance on Hon ble Bombay High Court s decision in the case of CCE, Nagpur v. Ultratech Cement Ltd., 2010-TIOL-745-HC-MUM-ST = 2010 (260) E.L.T. 369 (Bom.). The contention is that the expenses are incurred in their factory are included in the cost of production of their final products. In support of this they have also produced a certificate dated 3-12-2009 issued by the Cost Accountant. 5. The contention of the department is that there is no nexus between the manufacture of goods and the services in question and the certificate of Cost Accountant is being produced before the Tribunal for the first time and it was not produced at any stage before the lower authorities. They also contended t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ase of GTC Industries Ltd., (supra) and holding that the assessee is entitled to the credit of service tax paid on outdoor catering service . From the above, it follows that the issue stands settled in favour of the assessee. As regards the contention that the Hon ble Bombay High Court s decision is sub-silentio to the express provisions of Section 37. The learned SDR could not produce any evidence that the department raised this issue before the Hon ble Bombay High Court. Further, the department could not produce any decision modifying staying the operation of the Hon ble Bombay High Court s decision. The other sequel to the Hon ble Bombay High Court s decision while answering the question is that the Tribunal was justified in following ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
