COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE & SERVICE TAX, MANGALORE Vs. MANGALORE REFINERY & PETROCHEMICALS LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the final order No.21966/2014 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), South Zonal Bench, Bangalore.

(2.) The facts in brief are that during the course of audit by the Departmental Audit Party, it was noticed that the respondent had availed input service tax credit during the period July 2005 to March 2007 on i) repair charges; ii) repair of company vehicles; iii) rent a cab services used for transportation of staff/guests; iv) credit taken on invoices which did not bear Sl.No. and registration certificate etc.; pursuant to which, a show cause notice dated 23.08.2007 was issued to the respondent demanding recovery of credit availed on the said services as irregular. After consideration of the objections filed by the respondent, the adjudicating authority disallowed the credit taken on repair of company vehicles and rent a cab services thereby demanding Rs.13,19,362/- for availing the input service tax wrongly and imposed equal penalty along with interest. Being aggrieved by the said order, the respondent preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Central Excise, who allowed the appeal setting aside the order-in-original. Being aggrieved by the said order-in-appeal, the appellant preferred an appeal before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short 'CESTAT'), which was dismissed, against which, the instant appeal is preferred by the Revenue.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would contend that the Tribunal, following the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise vs. M/s. Stanzen Toyotetsu India (P) Ltd., 2011 23 STR 444 (Kar), dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. The said judgment is not challenged by the Revenue in view of the policy decision of the Central Government under the circular instructions on account of monetary limit, the Board vide Instruction F.No.390/Misc/163/2010-JC dated 12.12.2013 has communicated that the decisions/Judgments accepted for reason of monetary limit do not have precedent value. Accordingly, he contends that the said judgment of this Court relied on by the Tribunal has no precedent value. It is also contended that the issue involved in this case not having reached finality, it has to be re-considered by this Court in view of the judgment of this Court in M/s. Stanzen Toyotetsu India (P) Ltd. not being further challenged by the appellant before the Apex Court.