2014 (3) TMI 190

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ssions before the lower adjudicating authority. In the instant case, no such observation is seen in the adjudication order. - stay granted.
P K Das And Mathew John, JJ. For the Appellant : Shri J Shankar Raman, Adv. For the Respondent : Shri KSVV Prasad, SDR. PER : Mathew John The applicant does maintenance and repair of freight containers used by shipping lines and charge repair charges as also cost of materials used in such repair work. On repair charges, they were paying service tax. However, the value of materials used in repair work was not included in the value of service for paying service tax. Revenue was of the view that the applicant should have included the value of materials and paid service tax on such value. Based on su .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... h cases where (a) no credit of duty paid on such goods and materials sold, has been taken under the provisions of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 or; (b) where such credit has been taken by the service provider on such goods and materials, such service provider has paid the amount equal to such credit availed before the sale of such goods and materials". In the above notification, a service provider need not include the value of goods and materials sold by them to a service recipient if three conditions are satisfied; if they evidence the value of the goods and materials separately; if they do not take CENVAT credit on such goods and materials sold; and had taken such credit, if they had paid an amount equal to the credit availed, before the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... is case the containers were exported. 6. We have considered submissions on both sides. At this stage, we have to go by the findings given by the Commissioner that the applicant satisfied all the conditions of Notification No.12/2003-ST, since Revenue has not come in appeal against the finding given by the Commissioner. In the previous case of the same assessee for a different unit, we called for pre-deposit of about 10% because the applicant did not produce documents to justify submissions before the lower adjudicating authority. In the instant case, no such observation is seen in the adjudication order. We have considered the submissions of both sides and we are of the prima facie view that the applicant is eligible for exemption under no .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X