9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 211X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... engaged in the manufacture and export of iron ore fines. They filed refund claim for an amount of Rs. 31,34,108/- for the period from January 2009 to March 2009 under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules 2004 on the ground that they were not in a position to utilize the CENVAT credit available in their books. Proceedings were initiated to reject the refund claim on the following grounds: i) invoices are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... therefore since tax itself was not liable to be paid and the assessee could not have taken the credit. 4. Heard both sides. 5. Learned Commissioner has tabulated all the invoices in dispute and from the table it is seen that the dates of bills are 11.12.2008 and subsequent dates, except for two invoices, which relate to period subsequent to levy of service tax on supply of tangible goods. Servi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der and the Revenue. Even though the submission was made that tax was paid because of the pressure from the department, in the absence of evidence, it cannot be considered. Further only question that has to be examined at the receiver's end is whether tax has been paid or not. Reliance has also has been placed by the Revenue on Rule 6(2) of Service Tax Rules which was in existence prior to 201 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oyo Engineering India Ltd [2006 (201) ELT 513 (SC)] is relevant. Para 16 of the decision is reproduced below for better appreciation. "6. Learned counsel for the Revenue tried to raise some of the submissions which were not allowed to be raised by the Tribunal before us, as well. We agree with the Tribunal that the revenue could not be allowed to raise these submissions for the first time in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
