9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (12) TMI 90X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ution level in the factory premises. Under Section 25 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, the state pollution control board shall grant consent to establish cement industry by imposing conditions including establishment and maintenance of effluent waste treatment and disposal system. Similar conditions are imposed under Section 21 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. The manufacturer is also responsible for proper handling of waste under the provisions of Hazardous Wastes (Management and Handling) Rules, 1989. As required by the law, the appellant availed the service of certification of pollution level in their factory premises, from two agencies viz., Vimta Labs Ltd., and Ashwame ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he principal manufacturer in respect of service rendered by their job worker, on the ground that the job worker was not liable to pay service tax on the said service and, consequently, the principal manufacturer was not entitled to claim credit thereof. This view of the Revenue was rejected by the Tribunal which held that the CENVAT credit of the service tax paid by the job worker was available to the service recipient under Rule 3 of the CENVAT credit Rules, 2004. In the second case, Multi Organics Ltd., (supra), the Tribunal held likewise on a similar set of facts following Spic (HCD) Ltd., Vs CCE, Channai 2006 (201) ELT 386 (Tri.). In the case of Spic (HDC) Ltd. (supra), the case of the Revenue was that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be input service under Rule 2 (l). 5. In his rejoinder, the learned Counsel submits that the issue raised by the learned SDR is beyond the scope of show-cause notice. It is submitted that the department cannot be permitted to raise any issue beyond the scope of the show-cause notice. In this connection, the learned Counsel has relied on CCE Vs. Toyo Engineering India Ltd. 2006 (201) ELT 513 (SC), wherein it was held, on the facts of that case, that the benefit of project import was not deniable to the assessee inasmuch as it was not a ground mentioned in the show-cause notice. The apex Court held that the department could not be permitted to travel beyond the scope of the show-cause notice. 6. After consideri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
