2013 (7) TMI 499

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... P.K. Sharma, D.R. JUDGEMENT Per Sahab Singh: This is an appeal filed by Revenue against Order-in-Appeal No. 230(KKG)CE/JPR-I/2010 dated 2.6.2010 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Jaipur-II. 2. The brief facts of the case are that M/s Hindustan Zinc Ltd. (respondents) are manufacturer of lead, zinc and other metal concentrates falling under Chapter 26 of the Centr....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... The respondent filed appeal before the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) who vide impugned order has allowed their appeal. Revenue has challenged the impugned order in the present appeal. 3. Ld. D.R. appearing for Revenue submits that credit has been availed by the respondent in respect of service tax paid under GTA services for bringing cement inside their premises. He submits that cem....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... purpose of repair/renovation of these cavities. He submits that the mines are included in the factory area as a decision of Supreme Court in the case of Vikram Cement Vs. CCE. 2006 (197) ELT 145 (SC). He therefore submits that Revenues appeal is not maintainable. 5. After hearing both the sides, I find that input service has been defined under Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules means as use....