Skip to content


Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Sundaram Fasteners Pvt. Ltd. - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citation

Court

Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

Decided On

Case Number

Appeal No.E/486 of 2007 [Arising Out of Order-in-Appeal No.39 of 2007(M-II) dated 28.2.2007 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Chennai]

Judge

Appellant

Commissioner of Central Excise

Respondent

Sundaram Fasteners Pvt. Ltd.

Excerpt:


pradip kumar das, j. 1. revenue filed this appeal against the order of commissioner (appeals) whereby cenvat credit on mobile phones was allowed. 2. heard both sides and perused records 3. the learned authorized representative on behalf of revenue submits that mobile phone is not related to the business activities and therefore they are not eligible to avail credit. 4. i find that hon'ble gujarat high court in the case of cce vs excel crop care ltd. 2008 (12) s.t.r. 436 (guj.) held that cenvat credit is eligible on mobile phones. there is no material that mobile phones were used by the employees not related to manufacture. following the decision of hon'ble gujarat high court in the case of excel crop care ltd. (supra), i do not find any reason to interfere with the order of commissioner (appeals). accordingly, the appeal filed by revenue is rejected.

Judgment:


Pradip Kumar Das, J.

1. Revenue filed this appeal against the order of Commissioner (Appeals) whereby cenvat credit on mobile phones was allowed.

2. Heard both sides and perused records

3. The Learned Authorized Representative on behalf of Revenue submits that mobile phone is not related to the business activities and therefore they are not eligible to avail credit.

4. I find that Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CCE Vs Excel Crop Care Ltd. 2008 (12) S.T.R. 436 (Guj.) held that cenvat credit is eligible on mobile phones. There is no material that mobile phones were used by the employees not related to manufacture. Following the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Excel Crop Care Ltd. (supra), I do not find any reason to interfere with the order of Commissioner (Appeals). Accordingly, the appeal filed by Revenue is rejected.




Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organize Client Files //