9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (3) TMI 791X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ission of the counsel for the Asseesee; in view of the same, all the findings recorded by the Tribunal against the Assessee are set aside. The AO may again decide both the cases afresh in accordance with law, without being influenced by any observations made in the judgement of the Tribunal or in this order. - Matter remanded back - Decided in favour of assessee. - Tax Case No. 57 and 58 of 2011 - - - Dated:- 19-6-2014 - SHRI YATINDRA SINGH AND SHRI PRITINKER DIWAKER, JJ Shri MP Devnath with Shri Raja Sharma, Advocates for the Appellant Shri Maneesh Sharma with Shri Gary Mukhopadhyay, Advocates for the Respondent JUDGEMENT There is no equity about tax but then Government cannot be shylock, are two conflicting princ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tered, nor paid the service tax as the BHEL, the main contractor had paid the service tax. 7. The AO by his order dated 30.07.2007, rejected the explanation filed by the Assessee and confirmed the demand of ₹ 1,51,14,126/- alongwith interest as well as penalty and fine under section 75 to 78 of the Act. 8. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the Assessee Filed a Service Tax Appeal- 92 of 2008 before the Tribunal. 9. The Assesee paid the service tax partly by cash and partly by Cenvat credit on the capital goods and input services. The AO, by his order dated 13.09.2008, refused to give Cenvat Credit as there was some doubt regarding the documents on the basis of which credit was claimed. The Assessee Filed the Appeal number-85 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is admissible on the input service and capital goods? 16. The counsel for the Assessee has placed reliance on the circular issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs (the Board) (see Appendix-I to this judgement) as well as on the decisions of the Tribunal namely Vijay Sharma Co. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh {2010 (20) STR 309 (Tri-LB)} (the Vijay-Sharma case), BBR (India) Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalor-III {2006 (4) STR 269 (Tri. Bang.)}, Oikos Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,Bangalore-III {2007 (5) STR 229 (Tri. Bang.)}, Semac Pvt. Ltd. Vs.Commissioner of Service Tax, Bangalore {2006 (4) STR 475 (Tri. Bang.)} and M/s. Selvel Media Service Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CST, Delhi {2011 TOIL 543 CES ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g of the aforesaid paragraph as well as the circulars (Appendix-I) show that there is substance in the submission of the counsel for the Assessee. However, it is not possible for us to finally decide this point as neither the AO nor the Tribunal has recorded any Finding whether the BHEL has paid the service tax for the period in question for the services rendered by the Assessee or not. 19. The Tribunal has already remanded the matter back for re-decision; there appears to be substance in the submission of the counsel for the Asseesee; in view of the same, all the findings recorded by the Tribunal against the Assessee are set aside. The AO may again decide both the cases afresh in accordance with law, without being influenced by any obse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
