IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI
PRINCIPAL BENCH, COURT NO. III
Excise Appeal No. 870 & 880 of 2011-SM(BR)
[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No. 467 (CB)/CE/JPR-I1/2010 dt. 10.1.2011 and No. 517 (CB)/CE/JPR-I1/2010 dt. 13.1.2011 both passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals II), Jaipur ]
For approval and signature:
Hon ble Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial)
1 Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT
(Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2 Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in
any authoritative report or not?
3 Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?
4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
M/s. Hindustan Zinc Ltd. Appellants
Vs.
CCE, Jaipur II Respondent
Appearance:
Mr. Hemant Bajaj, Advocate for the Appellant
Mr. R.K. Mathur, AR for the Respondents
CORAM:
Hon'ble Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial)
Date of Hearing : 07.06.2013
ORDER NO .FO/ 56549-56550 /2013-SM(Br)
Per Archana Wadhwa:
The short issue involved in the present appeals is as to whether the input services availed by the appellant for horticulture work like maintenance of lawns, plants, plot in the cell, grass bud cutting, maintenance of nursery etc. would be covered by the definition of input services as per Rule 2(1) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 for the purpose of Cenvat Credit.
2. I find that the issue stand settled in the appellants own case as reported in [2013 (288) ELT 406 (Tri-Del)] laying down that the said services are covered by the definition of input services and the assessee is entitled to avail the credit. By following the said decision, I set aside the impugned order and allow both the appeals with consequential relief to the appellants.
(Pronounced in the open court )
( Archana Wadhwa )
Member(Judicial)
No comments:
Post a Comment