Cce Vs. Agarwal Trading Co. and Diamond - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

1. common issue is involved in these appeal and, therefore, both the appeals are taken up together for disposal. the revenue filed these appeals against the impugned orders whereby the commissioner (appeals) held that the credit on service tax paid on mobile phones is admissible to the respondent as 'input service' in terms of cenvat credit rules, 2004.3. after hearing the ld. dr and on perusal of the records, it is seen that the tribunal in the case of m/s. indian rayon & industries ltd. v.cce, bhavnagar reported in 2006 (4) str 79 (tribunal-mumbai) held in favour of the assesses. it is contended by the ld. dr that the said decision has been challenged by the revenue before the hon'ble high court. i do not find force in the submissions of the ld. dr. the case is squarely covered by the decision of the tribunal. therefore, there is no reason to interfere the order of the commissioner (appeals).accordingly, the appeals filed by the revenue are rejected.

Judgment:

1. Common issue is involved in these appeal and, therefore, both the appeals are taken up together for disposal. The Revenue filed these appeals against the impugned orders whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) held that the credit on service tax paid on mobile phones is admissible to the respondent as 'input service' in terms of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.

3. After hearing the ld. DR and on perusal of the records, it is seen that the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Indian Rayon & Industries Ltd. v.CCE, Bhavnagar reported in 2006 (4) STR 79 (Tribunal-Mumbai) held in favour of the assesses. It is contended by the ld. DR that the said decision has been challenged by the Revenue before the Hon'ble High Court. I do not find force in the submissions of the ld. DR. The case is squarely covered by the decision of the Tribunal. Therefore, there is no reason to interfere the order of the Commissioner (Appeals).

Accordingly, the appeals filed by the Revenue are rejected.