9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 580X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot to be taken into consideration for extending the benefit of said Notification No.12/2003, but it is only to be examined whether documentary proof indicating the value of goods sold, is available on record to extend the said benefit. Further, the Original Authority has not taken into consideration the provisions of Rule 6(3) of Cenvat Credit Rule 2004, that existed during the material period allowing the Cenvat Credit to the appellants. So, we direct Original Authority to re-adjudicate the matter taking into consideration the documentary proof of sale of goods and taking into consideration the provisions of said Rules 6(3) available during the material period. With these directions, we remand the matter back to the Original Authority ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dit of ₹ 21,11,299/- was proposed to be recovered under Rule 14 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, in addition there were proposals for interest and penalty. The appellants made submissions before the Original Authority, claiming benefit of Notification No.12/2003-ST dated 20 th June, 2003, claiming that the value of the goods, i.e. parts and accessories sold during the servicing of the vehicles, were separately shown in the invoices and such value which represents the sale of goods, is exempted from levy of service tax through the said notification. In addition, they have contested the input services to be eligible for providing output service of maintenance and repair. The show cause notice was adjudicated through Order-in-Original No.01/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... exemption of such value from the assessable value for arriving at service tax. This crucial aspect was not properly understood by the Original Authority. We, therefore, hold that the requirement of actual payment of VAT is not to be taken into consideration for extending the benefit of said Notification No.12/2003, but it is only to be examined whether documentary proof indicating the value of goods sold, is available on record to extend the said benefit. Further, the Original Authority has not taken into consideration the provisions of Rule 6(3) of Cenvat Credit Rule 2004, that existed during the material period allowing the Cenvat Credit to the appellants. So, we direct Original Authority to re-adjudicate the matter taking into considera ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
