9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (4) TMI 272X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ated:- 15-4-2011 - Shri Rakesh Kumar, J. Shri Krishna Pratap Singh, DR for the appellants. Shri Dheeraj Nethani, Employee of the company for the respondent. Per Rakesh Kumar The respondent are registered with Service Tax Department in the category of Real Estate Agent service providers. It was alleged that during the period from October, 2004 to March, 2005, they have taken and utilised Cenvat credit of Rs.13,260/- in respect of certain input services to which they were not entitled. The Asstt. Commissioner vide Order-in-Original dated 20.11.2009 disallowed Cenvat credit and confirmed the Cenvat credit demand along with interest and imposed penalty of equal amount on them under Section 76 of the Finance Act , 1994. Fr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s order with direction to re-examine the case and pass the order by affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the appellant and record reasons as to why the services utilised by the appellant were not an input service for the output services of the appellants. Against this order of the Commissioner (Appeals), the department had filed an appeal on the ground that the provisions of Section 86 of the Finance Act, 1994 regarding filing appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) are in pari materia with the provisions of Section 35 A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, that in view of the judgement of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of MIL India Ltd. reported in 2007 (210) ELT 188 (SC) and Hon ble Punjab Haryana High Court in the case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appellate stage, to take a decision about correctness or otherwise of the order-in-original on the basis of the records available before him and as such no verification was required. The law as it stands does not permit the Commissioner (Appeals) to remand any matter. The position would have been different if in respect of some plea of the respondent, some verification of the records available in Divisional or Range Office was required which could be done only by the original adjudicating authority. But this is not the case here, as on the basis of the documents on records, it was possible for the Commissioner (Appeals) to give his findings even if those had not been considered by the original adjudicating authority. In view of this, I fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
