9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 909X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the amendment w.e.f. April 2011 - the appellant in order to support his claim that the said services were prior to the amendment in April 2011 has produced the certificate from the service provider which was not there before the Commissioner (Appeals). The impugned order needs to be set aside and the matter needs to be remanded back to the original authority with a direction to pass a De novo order after considering all the evidence which may be produced by the appellant in support of their submission - Appeal allowed by way of remand. - ST/21188/2018-SM - Final Order No. 20353/2019 - Dated:- 11-4-2019 - MR. S.S GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER Mr. Rajesh Kumar, CA For the Appellant Mr. Kanipakam Murali, Superintendent (AR) For the Re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 47,795/- (Rupees Forty Seven Thousand Seven Hundred and Ninety Five only) on storage racks and reduced the penalty to 50%. 2. Heard both the parties and perused the records. 3. Learned consultant appearing for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed without properly appreciating the facts and the law. He further submitted that the appellant has rightly availed the credit on signages as the signages are used for advertising the appellant s services on which taxes are paid. He further submitted that the objection in the impugned order is that the said goods were not used in relation to providing of output service. He further submitted that signages is one of the essential asp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hange (I) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C.Ex., Cus. S.T., Surat-II 2018 (012) GSTL 0302 (Tri.-Ahmd.) b. Manaksia coated Metals Industries Ltd. Vs. CCE, Kutch 2018 (012) GSTL 0090 (Tri.-Ahmd) c. Sai Samhita Storages P. Ltd. Vs. CC CE, Visakhapatnam II 2010 (225) E.L.T. 91 (Tri.-Bang.) 3.2. With regard to other input services, he submitted that they were used for providing output service and the same is eligible credit. 4. On the other hand the learned AR defended the impugned order. 5. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of the material on record, I find that the impugned order has not considered all the submissions made by the appellant with regard to various input services. Furt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
