9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (7) TMI 741X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecided in this proceeding. These arise from the different impugned orders but involve the same issue and for that reason both the appeals are being decided by this order. 2. The appellants are manufacturers of excisable goods. During the period January 2005 to January 2008 they availed benefit of Cenvat Credit Scheme in respect of inputs services viz. Goods Transport Agency for transporting their ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... documents to show that service tax was paid by the transporter. 4. The counsel for the appellant now submits few sample copies of invoices raised by three different transporting companies showing payment of service tax amount. The counsel relies on Rule 9(1)(f) of Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 which states that an invoice, a bill or challan issued by a provider of input service on or after the 10th d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... umstances under which the transporter paid the tax, whether such service tax claimed to be paid were deposited in Government account. Further it cannot be clearly established that the invoices raised and the service tax amounts relating to services rendered to the appellant is paid. He also raised his doubt that since transporter was not required to pay service tax there is a chance that the trans ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the facts that in respect of the credits claimed by the appellant there are invoices showing that service tax has been paid by the transporter. A verification at the place, where the said transporter is registered as a service provider and where he is filing service tax returns may be necessary. Therefore I find it proper to remit this matter for de novo consideration by the adjudicating authority ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
