9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (9) TMI 1015X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of overlooking the mandatory provisions of sub-rule (1) of Rule 9 of the CCR, 2004 - recipient of the service, shipper of the goods/documents and not the appellant? - Appellant is Agent or not - HELD THAT:- It is trite law that the show cause notice is the foundation in the matter of levy and recovery of duty penalty and interest and since the grounds on which the appeal was preferred before the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... facts and circumstances of the case and in law the CESTAT was correct in deciding that the Cenvat credit shall not be denied on the grounds that any of the documents mentioned in sub-rule (1) does not contain all the particulars required to be contained therein under these rules? (ii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the CESTAT was correct that overlook the manda ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d was not in conformity with Rule 9(1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004., with a view to discharge their service tax liability in respect of the taxable services provided during the period from 2009-10 to 2012-13. The matter was adjudicated upon by the adjudicating authority. The adjudicating authority vide its order dated 16th July, 2015 held in favour of the Respondent and dropped both the sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rvice Service Tax amount 5. The said order was challenged before the Tribunal, in which contrary to the grounds alleged in the show cause-cum-demand notice, the revenue questioned the order of the adjudicating authority on the ground that the activity of the assessee was not an output service , within the meaning of Rule 2 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The Tribunal, however, dismis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
