9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 679X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... R) For the Respondent : Shri K P Chaudhari, CA ORDER Per M V Ravindran This appeal is filed by the Revenue against Order-in-Original No. 26/STC/BR/09-10 dated 15.02.2010. 2. The respondent has also filed a Cross-objection. 3. Heard both sides and perused the record. 4. The issue involved in this case is regarding the demand of service tax on the appellant. It was noticed by the lower author ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... use notice is that the assessee availed double benefit both under Notification No. 1/06 and 12/03. No further supporting evidence was elaborated on this allegation. The assessee indicated Notification No. 12/03 in their ST-3 return under the category 'abatement'. It is apparent that the use of words "abatement" and "exemption" interchangeably resulted in the substantial confusion. As menti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 03 which was mentioned in ST-3. As pointed out by the assessee, this is not arithmetically possible. Without going into the documentary evidence and merit, it can be stated that the assessee, subject to fulfilment of the conditions, is eligible for Notification No. 12/03 or Notification No. 1/06. From the ST-3 return, it is clear that no tax has been paid through cenvat credit. Even if it is consi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this ground." 5. As against the above recorded factual findings, the grounds of appeal which has been taken by the Revenue before us indicates only an unsupported plea that the appellant had availed benefit of Notification 1/2006-ST and benefit of Notification 12/03-ST. There is no supporting evidence to indicate that the respondent had availed benefit of Notification 12/03-ST. We find that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
