9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (2) TMI 409X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... INDUSTRIES LIMITED VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF GST CENTRAL EXCISE (VICE-VERSA) [ 2020 (12) TMI 282 - CESTAT CHENNAI] for the period prior to 01.07.2012 as well as for the period after 01.07.2012 - The Tribunal followed the decision in the case of M/S SV JIWANI VERSUS CCE ST, VAPI [ 2014 (3) TMI 454 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD] . This decision was challenged before the Hon ble High Court of Bombay by the department in COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CUSTOMS AND SERVICE TAX, VAPI VERSUS M/S. S.V. JIWANI, NAROLI, SILVASSA [ 2016 (3) TMI 484 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] , the Hon ble High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the department. Similar view was taken by the Tribunal in the case of M/S INTERARCH BUILDING PRODUCTS PVT. LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF SER ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... edit on inputs is in violation of Rule 2 A of the Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006, which prevailed during the disputed period. Appellants vide their letter dated 28.02.2018 had furnished particulars along with the copy of ST-3 returns. 1.2. Show cause notices were issued for the different period from April 2014 to March 2016, April 2016 to June 2017 and May 2015 to August 2016 proposing to demand the short levied service tax along with interest and for imposing penalties. The SCNs also proposed to disallow the credit availed on inputs. After due process of law, the original authority confirmed the demand, interest and imposed penalties besides disallowing the credit availed on inputs. The appellant filed appeals before t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed under Rule 2 A (ii) B. The allegation of the department that the activity being WCS appellant should determine the taxable value only under Rule 2 A and that appellant cannot opt to pay service tax under Section 67 is erroneous. He submitted that the issue stands decided in the appellant s own case for the period prior to 2014 in Final Order No. 41261-41265/2020 dated 04.12.2020. 3. Learned AR Shri R. Rajaraman, supported the findings in the impugned orders. 4. The issue whether the appellant can discharge service tax on the gross amount charged under Section 67 of the Finance Act, 1994, and also avail Cenvat Credit for the WCS in the nature of retreading activity was analysed by the Tribunal in the appellant s own case for the per ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
