COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE Vs. GOLDEN TABACCO LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a Revenue's Appeal challenging the order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal on an application for stay. The application for stay in Appeal No. E/2002/2010/Mum was decided by the impugned order on 5 -10 -2012. However, instead of dealing with the application for stay/waiver of pre -deposit the Tribunal has disposed of the Appeal itself and by a cryptic, so also, virtually unreasoned order, is the complaint of the Revenue.

(2.) ON the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the Assessee supports the order of the Tribunal by submitting that the Tribunal has followed the order delivered in the case of Idea Cellular Limited v. The Commissioner of Central Excise reported in, 2011 (22) S.T.R. 450 (Tribunal). In that decision, the Tribunal held that insurance of vehicles, laptop and insurance for cash during its transit from the cash collection centre to the bank can be treated as input service and is entitled for input service credit. Therefore, the order passed cannot be termed as perverse or vitiated by any error of law apparent on the face of the record. The Appeal does not raise any substantial question of law and deserves to be dismissed.

(3.) WHAT we have noted from perusal of two paragraph order and containing the reasoning virtually in one paragraph is that the Tribunal has failed to refer to the background facts. It has also not referred to the fact that whether the services and termed as input services in the case of Idea Cellular (supra) are identical or similar to one involved in the present case. We find some substance in the contentions of Mr. Rao, learned counsel appearing for the Revenue that in this case the factual situation is prima facie not identical. There, the issue was the credit on input services and of laptop, etc. In this case the issue involved was taking of service tax credit of insurance premium amount in respect of Baroda factory and residential premises at various locations all over India. The argument was that Cenvat credit was not admissible to Mumbai factory as Baroda factory was separate unit and that unit can avail the credit of service tax paid on such input services. The Mumbai Factory is not using or received any of input services in the factory at Mumbai, therefore, the credit is not admissible for the factory at Mumbai.