9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (1) TMI 1138X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... were confirmed in common order of original authority and upheld by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai-II in order-inappeal no. US/466/RGD/2012 dated 6th August 2012, disallowing of credit of Rs.27,86,328 for the period from October 2004 to December 2009 for alleged lack of 'nexus' is under challenge. The dispute is before us for the second time arising from remand by the Tribunal for the appeal having been dismissed, on the former occasion, by the first appellate authority solely on the ground of failure to comply with predeposit requirement and with the direction to dispose off on merits in the light of decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur v. Ultratech Cement Ltd [2010 (260) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to 'telecom service' and in Tradex Polymers Pvt Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Ahmedabad [2011 (24) STR 82 (Tri-Ahmd)] in relation to 'event management service besides the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in Commissioner of Central Excise & Service tax, Chennai v. Ashok Leyland Ltd [2019 (369) ELT 162 (Mad)]. 4. Learned Authorized Representative pointed out that the impugned services could not be subjected to tests prescribed by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur v. Manikgarh Cement [2010 (20) STR 456 (Bom)] and in re Coca Cola India Pvt Ltd in the absence of any submissions made by appellant. He submitted several decisions of the Tribunal that relied on the former for disallowin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any interference......' which, in our view, is not a disposal in accordance with the direction of the Tribunal. There has been no examination of the scope of availment of the several specific services impugned in this dispute. 6. Notices for recovery are issued under the authority of substantive and procedural provisions of Acts and Rules framed thereunder. A noticee is made aware of the detriment in judicial decisions only upon incorporation in the consequent adjudication orders and the specifics mandated in such decisions cited in the adjudication order could not have been factually countered except at the appellate stage. Opportunity had not been afforded to the appellant for doing so in the earlier round that was carried to the Trib ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
