9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (3) TMI 74X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 12-12-2019 - HON BLE MR. C. J. MATHEW, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) HON BLE MR. P. DINESHA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) APPEARANCE: Ms. Mary Jossy, Advocate for the Appellant Ms. Sridevi Taritla, Authorized Representative (A.R.) for the Respondent Order Per : Hon ble Mr. P. Dinesha This appeal is filed by the assessee against the Order-in-Original No. LTUC/313/2012-(C) dated 26.09.2012 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Large Taxpayer Unit, Chennai. 2.1 A Show Cause Notice No. LTUC/280/2011-C dated 28.09.2011 was issued covering the period September 2007 to September 2010 inter alia on the grounds that in respect of the services mentioned in the table at page 2 of the Show Cause Notice, it appeared t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng the details of credits availed and that the ISD also had wrongly availed those ineligible credits which were passed on; thus, an amount of ₹ 96,05,557/- being the ineligible credit of Service Tax so availed was proposed to be demanded along with applicable interest and penalty. The authority has clearly placed on record in the form of Annexures to the Show Cause Notice the details of Service Tax credit thus wrongly availed, explicitly giving breakup under each of the above services. 3. The appellant filed its reply dated 19.07.2012 vide acknowledgement dated 25.07.2012 wherein it has specifically and exhaustively replied on the availment of CENVAT Credit on the Group Medical Insurance Policy for employees and their dependants ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by the Chennai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Schneider Electric India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of G.S.T. Central Excise in Excise Appeal No. 41629 of 2018 (Final Order No. 42609 of 2018 dated 12.10.2018). 6. Per contra, Ms. Sridevi Taritla, Learned Joint Commissioner (Authorized Representative) appearing for the Revenue-respondent, while supporting the findings of the Adjudicating Authority, also contended that the appellant has nowhere explained the nature of services with regard to its relevancy/nexus in or in relation to the manufacture of the appellant. Accordingly, she prayed for sustaining the demand in the impugned order. 7. Heard both sides and have gone through the decisions relied on during the course of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
