THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE BELGAUM Vs. M/S. SKYTECH ENGINEERING

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal filed by the department. There is no representation for the respondent who has requested for a decision on merits. I have perused their cross -objections wherein they have relied on certain decisions viz., 2007 (215) E.L.T. 515 (Tri. -Bang.),, 2008 (230) E.L.T. 569 (Tri. -Ahmd.) and, 2010 (20) S.T.R. 219 (Tri. -Bang.). I have also heard the learned Superintendent (AR) and considered her submissions. In answer to a query, she fairly points out that this bench has, of late, considered identical issue and held in favour of the assessee. The reference is to Final Order Nos. 673 -675/2012 dated 28.09.2012 in Appeal Nos. E/245, 1621 & 1622/2010 (Commissioner Vs. M/s. Pokarna Ltd. and another). The issue is whether the respondent was entitled to claim CENVAT credit on CHA service availed for export of excisable goods during the relevant period. An identical issue was considered in para 7 of the aforesaid Final Order, which is reproduced below:

(2.) LEARNED DR relies on the Single Member Bench ruling rendered in the case of Ginni Filaments Ltd.