9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (2) TMI 292X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lly discharged the primary burden, with the support of documentary proof. The appellant has also contended as to its eligibility to Cenvat Credit if service tax was demanded without extending the benefit of Notification No. 12/2003, but however, a perusal of the impugned orders does not reveal any such contentions urged by the appellant and therefore we deem it proper in the interest of justice to remit this issue of verifying the eligibility or otherwise of the appellant to the Cenvat Credit in question, to the file of the adjudicating authority who shall call for such documents as may be necessary in this regard. Appeal allowed by way of remand. - Service Tax Appeal No. 40384 of 2013-DB - FINAL ORDER No. 40091/2020 - Dated:- 6-2-2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rst Appellate Authority namely, The Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Madurai, who vide the Order-in-Appeal No.100/2012 dated 23.11.2012 having upheld the demand as per the Order-in-Original, has assailed the same in this appeal. 2. We have heard Shri S. Ramachandran, Learned Consultant appearing for the assessee-appellant, and Ms. K. Komathi (Joint Commissioner), Learned Authorized Representative appearing for the Revenue. The only issue based on the above facts that is required to be decided is the eligibility of the appellant to the benefit of Notification No. 12/2003 ibid. 3. The facts are not in dispute. Notification No. 12/2003 dated 20.06.2003 reads as under:- Notification No. 12/2003-S.T., dated 20/6/2003] ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ategorically found that the invoices furnished by the appellant were not sufficient enough to conclusively establish the value of the goods and materials and hence it was all the more relevant for the assessee to furnish the necessary documentary proof. Therefore, going by the judicial discipline we have to examine whether the assessee-appellant has successfully discharged the primary burden, with the support of documentary proof. 4. Learned Consultant drew our attention to the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Safety Retreading Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Salem reported in 2017 (48) STR 97 (S.C.), but however, we do not dispute the ratio laid down by the Hon ble Supreme Court. However, in the instant case, it is not the ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
