TMI Blog2013 (5) TMI 164X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wed the credit on catering service. Thus, applicant is not liable for any penalty in this regard. - Appeal No. 699 of 2011-SM - - - Dated:- 1-3-2013 - Mr. S.S. Kang, J. For the Appellant: Sh. Hemant Bajaj, Advocate For the Respondent: Shri R.K. Verma, DR. JUDGEMENT Per: S.S. Kang: Heard both sides. 2. Appellant filed this appeal against the impugned order whereby credit of Rs.7,64,473/- has been denied. The credit of Rs. 7,43,717/- is denied in respect of service tax paid on CHA services which were availed on the port services. The credit of Rs. 2,720/- is denied in respect of the catering services. 3. Contention of the applicant is that applicant cleared the goods for export on FOB/CIF basis and the applica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5. Shri B.L. Narasimhan, ld. Advocate for the appellant, pleaded that the respondent s contract with the overseas buyers was on C F basis; that in view of this, the place of removal would be the port from where the goods were exported, that in this regard he relies upon the Hon ble Gujarat High Court s judgment in the case of CCE Cus. vs. Parthpoly Wooven Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2010 (25) STR 4; that same view has been taken by the Tribunal in the cases of Modern Petrofils vs. CCE, Vadodara -2010 (18) STR 625 (Tri. Ahmd.) , Leela Scottish Lace Pvt. Ltd. vs. CC, Bangalore reported in 2010 (19) STR 69 (Tri. Bang.); C.C.E., Ahmedabad vs. Fine Care Biosystems reported in 2009 (16) ELT 701; C.C.E., Surat vs. Colour Synth Indus. P. Ltd. reported ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... atering activity. In view of this, ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant fairly concedes on this issue. However, he contested the penalty on the ground that there are contrary decisions on the issue and ultimately the Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of CCE, Nagpur vs. Ultratech Cement Ltd. reported in 2010 (20) STR 577 (Bom.) settled the issue. 10. The applicant fairly concedes that the credit is not admissible in respect of catering service in the present case. In respect of penalty, I find that as now the issue has been settled by the decision of Ultratech Cement (supra). In the case of Ultratech Cement Limited Tribunal allowed the credit on catering service whereas the Hon ble Bombay High Court partly allowed the appea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
