9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 779X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the issue is covered by the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of ABB Ltd [2011 (3) TMI 248 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] for the period upto 01.04.2008. Thereafter there was an amendment in the definition of input services. The lower authorities would examine the effect of the amendment and would re-decide the issue accordingly for the period after 01.04.2008. As such till the said period, the demand raised against the assessee is set aside and for the period subsequent to same is remanded for fresh decision. Appeal allowed - matter on remand - decided partly in favor of appellant. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s order dated 12-08-2010. Aggrieved by this order of the Commissioner (Appeal), the Appellants have filed this Appeal. 3. The main argument of the Appellants is that the exemption under Notification 214/86 is an exemption for intermediate product to be used by the principal in the manufacture of dutiable goods and this exemption is on a different footing as compared to other exemption and they are eligible to take Cenvat credit on the inputs used in such intermediate goods. They rely on the decision of the Larger Bench of Tribunal in Sterlite Industries (I) Ltd Vs. CCE-2005 (183) ELT (Tri-LB). They further point out that as per the decision of Karnataka High Court in the case of in CCE Vs. ABB Ltd-2011 (23) STR 97 (Kar), they were eligible ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Tribunal cannot be appreciated. There is no difference between the inputs and input services credit and the issue being the same i.e. clearance of goods for job work in terms of notification number 214/86-CE, the denial of credit, whether it be on inputs or on input services, cannot be upheld. It is the ratio of the law declared by the Larger Bench which is required to be made applicable. 7. Otherwise also I find that the Tribunal in the case of JBF Industries Vs. CCE Vapi 2014 (34) STR 345 (Tri-Ahmd.) has held that in view of the law declared by the Larger Bench, input services credit taken by the appellant in respect of goods sent for job work in 214/86-CE cannot be denied. In fact, I find that the Tribunal in the same assessee s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
