9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (10) TMI 7X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... LTD. [ 2009 (8) TMI 407 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD] and we are also informed that, since the filing of this appeal, the Hon ble High Court of Gujarat has dismissed the plaint of Revenue against the decision in re Sri Hind Steel Ltd. - the dispute is now non-existent. The appeal of Revenue is limited to the acceptance by the first appellate authority of the submissions made in the appeal before him. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e recipient of goods transport agency service , amounting to ₹ 35,11,374/- for the period between February 2005 to February 2006 and the other by non-inclusion of freight of ₹ 4,59,00,409/- and ₹ 1,60,527 that was allegedly found to be short-paidon comparison of the details submitted to the Central Excise Revenue Audit with the details furnished in the Service Tax returns for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... payment of tax coupled with the submission by the appellant therein that tax liability of ₹ 10,09,928, that had been discharged included payment of ₹ 12,50,391/- in March 2006 as reflected in the returns for the year thereafter, sufficed to set aside the order of original authority. 2. We have heard LearnedAuthorized Representative and Learned Counsel for the respondent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the grounds of appeal,is pending with the Hon ble High Court of Gujarat on appeal of Revenue. We also note that the grounds of appeal have not furnished any evidence to conclude that the goods transport agency did avail credit of duty paid on capital goods or inputs or that they were entitled to CENVATcredit at all. The flexibility afforded by the clarification in circular dated 21st August 2008 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the claim of having discharged liability of ₹ 12,50,391 is unacceptable. We are unable to appreciate this conclusion. The claim of the appellant before the first appellate authority was that tax was paid for March 2006. The grounds of appeal do not advert to this factual submission. Accordingly, we find that the premise in appeal itself being in error, the claim of Revenue is not capable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
