9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 389X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ke payment of 5% / 10% of sale price of exempted goods / value of exempted services is not acceptable or convincing - demand set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - ST/20350/2017-SM - Final Order No.22900/2017 - Dated:- 24-11-2017 - Shri S. S. Garg, Judicial Member Shri K Hariharan, CA For the Appellant Shri P Murthy, AR For the Respondent ORDER Per : S.S GAG The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 13.12.2016 passed by the Commissioner (A) whereby Commissioner (A) has rejected the appeal of the appellant. 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the appellant is providing taxable services such as Airport service, cargo handling service, storage and warehousing se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 09 along with interest of ₹ 11,206/- and was intimated vide letter dated 07.01.2009 and therefore the option was exercised during the course of the year itself. 5.1 The Revenue has not disputed the amount determined as per Rule 6(3A)(b)(iii) in the show cause notice and in this adjudication proceedings or in the order-in-appeal he further submitted that non-intimation of option under 6(3A)(a) at the beginning of the year is at the most a procedural deviation and not substantiative violation and further 6(3A)(a) does not specify any time period within which the option Rule 6(3)(ii) should be exercised. 5.3. He further submitted that the Commissioner (A) has wrongly observed in the impugned order that the intimation was given on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... availing option, manufacturer/service provider to lose his choice to avail option under Rule 6(3)(ii) for reversing proportionate credit Procedure and conditions in said Rule 6(3A) intend to make Rule 6(3) workable and not to take away options exercisable under it Rule 6(3)(i) does not become automatically applicable on failure to intimate in writing about option availed Demand not legal and sustainable . 7.1 Similarly in the case of Foods, Fats Fertilizers Ltd. Vs. CCE, Guntur cited supra , the Hon ble Tribunal has held as under: In this case, the Hon ble Bangalore Tribunal held that Rule 6(3A) of CCR is procedural in nature . 7.2 Similarly in the case of Mercedes Benz India (P) Ltd. Vs. CCE, Pune-I cited supra , it is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
