9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (7) TMI 1673 - AT - Service TaxDenial of benefit of abatement of 67% in terms of notification No. 1/2006 - denial on the ground that the appellant have simultaneously availed the cenvat credit of duty - HELD THAT - Revenue has no objection to the early hearing and submits that the matter can be remanded to the lower authorities for fresh consideration in the light of above referred decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL EXCISE CUSTOMS VERSUS M/S LARSEN TOUBRO LTD. AND OTHERS 2015 (8) TMI 749 - SUPREME COURT , inasmuch as the same was not available at the time of adjudication. The matter is remanded back to the original adjudicating authority for fresh decision.
Issues: Availment of abatement under notification No. 1/2006 and simultaneous cenvat credit
In this judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT NEW DELHI, the dispute revolved around the appellant's availment of abatement of 67% under notification No. 1/2006, which was denied due to the simultaneous availing of cenvat credit of duty. The appellant contended that the service in question was not taxable as it fell under the category of work contract service, citing a decision by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a specific case. The Revenue, represented by the Learned DR, had no objection to an early hearing and suggested remanding the matter to the lower authorities for reconsideration in light of the Supreme Court decision, which was not available during the initial adjudication. The appellant's advocate agreed to this course of action. The Tribunal, after considering the arguments, set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the original adjudicating authority for a fresh decision. It was emphasized that the appellant should be granted an opportunity to present their case before the adjudicating authority and could refer to any relevant decisions they deemed fit. Importantly, the Tribunal clarified that they did not delve into the merits of the case, leaving all issues open for further consideration. The Miscellaneous Application and the appeal were disposed of accordingly, with the decision being dictated and pronounced in the open court.
|
