9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (1) TMI 1056X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is regard cannot agree with the submissions of the learned DR that the appellant in effect is seeking review of the Final Order and that there is no error apparent on the face of record. The error pointed out by the appellant, strikes on mere looking of the records and the Final Order. It does not require any long drawn process of arguments. Whether the mistake is apparent or not depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. The error pointed out by the appellants is manifest on the face of records and for the same, the decision relied by the DR is not applicable to the facts herein. The Tribunal being the ultimate fact finding forum, a patent error on finding of fact which has formed the basis of the decision in the appeal does call ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... no independent finding with regard to this issue. 2. For better appreciation, the Final Order of the Tribunal dated 9.4.2014, in its' entirety is reproduced as under: Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that the service tax paid on the services availed from insurance company and also the transporter was denied as CENVAT credit. There is no evidence on record to show that these services were meant for workers while discharging the statutory obligation if any. Nothing could be explained as whether premium paid and transport facilities provided were to discharge any statutory obligation. In the absence of evidences, there cannot be presumption that the facilities were provided to the workers in terms of law. Accordingly, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sought to provide eligibility to cenvat credit of the taxes paid for only those services, which have correlation or nexus with the manufacture and clearances of the goods. The insurance of staff employees, taxi charges and services taken from service station for maintenance of vehicles as noted above, were taken to perform a statutory obligation to pay compensation to employees and thus, they were in the nature of employee welfare policies and not related to manufacture and clearance of the goods. In Para 5.9, it is stated as under: The above decision shows that in taxation statutes, a business activity is always understood to be such activity, which is carried on by the assessee to earn profit. The statutory obligation, in pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Cenvat Credit Rules-2004. Thus, they appears to have wrongly availed Cenvat Credit ₹ 69,188/- (Service Tax ₹ 66,870/- + Edu. Cess ₹ 1,652/- + S. H. Cess ₹ 659/-) against the service tax paid on ineligible input service in terms of Rule 3 4 of Cenvat Credit Rule 2004. 6. Thus the records per se, show that there was no dispute whether the services were availed for staff and employees. Needless to say that no evidence has to be adduced for facts which are not in dispute. It apparently appears that the Tribunal has erred in recording a finding of fact. Rule 2 (l) does not say that the services availed in order to be eligible for credit should be services under statutory obligation. In this- regard I cannot agre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
