9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (6) TMI 13X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly contended that the Revenue has raised the very same demand which was deleted earlier by this very Bench and therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable. 2.2.1 He referred to the Order of this Bench in Final Order No. 1834 of 2009 dated 27.11.2009 for the period March 2005 to January 2006, which is placed at pages 46 to 50 of the Appeal Memorandum, wherein this Bench has inter alia held in favour of the assessee after recording the facts that the appellant during the course of manufacture of 'pneumatic tyres' availed the credit of duty paid on inputs and capital goods and Service Tax paid on input services and had paid Service Tax of Rs. 2,52,476/- through debit in their CENVAT Account of inputs and capital goods as they were the pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ving filed its reply had inter alia contended that the very issue itself had been decided in their favour by the Tribunal, but however, the Adjudicating Authority vide Order-in-Original dated 26.09.2018 confirmed the demand and thereafter, the same has been upheld by the First Appellate Authority vide impugned order. 2.4 Ld. Advocate concluded that the demand amounts to double levy by two different Officers, which is not sustainable. 3. Per contra, Shri. M. Jagan Babu, Ld. Departmental Representative appearing for the Revenue, supported the findings of the lower authorities. 4.1 I find, after going through the documents placed on record as also after hearing both sides, that the very same demand was challenged before this Bench which had ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tribunal in the case of Alsthom Ltd. Vs. C.C.E. - 2008 (12) S.T.R. 23 has also dealt with the issue for this period and has held in that case that the credit cannot be utilized for paying service tax for this period as well. As such, as far as the period beyond 18.04.2006 is concerned, I hold that the appellant/respondent-assessees are not entitled to utilize CENVAT Credit for payment of service tax on GTA service and therefore, the duty demand and demand of interest are justified. However, considering the disputed nature of the issue, I hold that imposition of penalty in respect of the period from 19.04.2006 to 28.02.2008 is not justified and wherever penalties have been imposed, the same are set aside." 5. I am therefore of the view that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
