2011 (6) TMI 491

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... is set aside, appeal is allowed - E/25/10 - Mum - - - Dated:- 1-6-2011 - Shri. Ashok Jindal, J Appearance Shri G.L. Deshpande, Advocate for appellant Per Shri Ashok Jindal The appellant M/s. Gimatex Industries Pvt. Ltd. are in appeal against the order of demand of duty of Rs.78,740/- along with interest and equal amount of penalty. 2. The facts of the case are that the appell .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nts submitted that the appellants are the manufacturer of excisable goods, therefore their case is squarely covered by the decision in the case of Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai vs. Phills Engineering Corporation - 2010 (20) STR 692 (Tri. Mumbai) which was passed by this Tribunal following the decision of Commissioner vs. Nahar Industrial Enterprises Ltd. - 2007 (7) S.T.R. 26 (Tri.) and M/s. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... hence the appeal be rejected. 4. Heard and considered. 5. After careful consideration of the submissions made by both the sides I find the dispute is that prior to 01.03.2008 whether the appellants are eligible to pay service tax on GTA services from CENVAT credit or not? The reliance of the learned SDR in the case of M/s ITC Ltd. (supra) is not relevant to the facts of this case. In fact .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X