w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



CCE, Chennai II v/s M/s. Electrosteel Castings Ltd.

    E/621 of 2009 & E/CO/1 of 2010 (Arising Out of Order-in-Appeal No. 52 of 2009 (M-II) dated 27.8.2009 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Chennai)

    Decided On, 09 April 2014

    At, Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal South Zonal Bench At Chennai

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. P.K. DAS
    By, JUDICIAL MEMBER

    For the Appellant: P. Arul, Supdt. (AR). For the Respondent: V. Balasubramanian, Advocate.



Judgment Text

1. Revenue filed this appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the adjudication order was set aside.

2. Heard both sides and perused the records.

3. The issue involved in this case is whether the respondents are eligible to avail CENVAT credit for the service tax paid on freight for outward transportation from the place of removal during the period March 2005 to July 2007. The learned AR for Revenue reiterates the grounds of the appeal. He relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CCE Vs. Vesuvious India Ltd. 2013-TIOL-1038-HC-CAL. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CCE, Bangalore Vs. ABB Ltd. 2011 (23) STR 97 (Kar.) and the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CCE Vs. Parth Poly Wooven Pvt. Ltd. ‘2012 (25) STR 4 (Guj.).

4. I find that the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court, after considering the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ABB Ltd. (supra) held that CENVAT credit is eligible on service tax paid on GTA service prior to 1.4.2008. The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court is also of the same view. I find that the decisions of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court and Hon’ble Gujarat High Court are squarely applicable in the present case. The decision of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Vesuvious India Ltd. (supra), as relied upon by the learned AR, has only granted temporary stay.

5. In view of the above discussion, respectfully following the decisions of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case ABB Ltd. (supra) and Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Parth Poly Wooven Pvt. Ltd. (

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

supra), I do not find any infirmity in the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). Accordingly, the appeal filed by the Revenue is rejected. The cross-objection filed by the respondent is disposed of.
O R