9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (8) TMI 1332X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... elves. It is not applicable to the appellant who pays the service tax on GTA Services received on Reverse Charge basis. Therefore, the Department is reading beyond the scope of the Notification. Hon ble Apex Court in the case of M/S. SANDUR MICRO CIRCUITS LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BELGAUM [ 2008 (8) TMI 3 - SUPREME COURT] held that ' The issue relating to effectiveness of a Circular contrary to a Notification statutorily issued has been examined by this Court in several cases. A Circular cannot take away the effect of Notifications statutorily issued. In fact, in certain cases, it has been held that the Circular cannot whittle down the Exemption Notification and restrict the scope of the Exemption Notification or hit i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the effect that CENVAT credit has not been availed by them. Show Cause Notices dated 30.03.2009 and 27.03.2009 were issued demanding service tax of Rs.2,12,910/- and Rs.92,875/-; the demands were confirmed by the Original Authority who also imposed penalty of Rs.4,08,973/- and Rs.1,56,592/-; on an appeal filed by the appellants, learned Commissioner, vide impugned order, has upheld the order of the Original Authority. 3. Shri R.K. Hasija, assisted by Shri Shivang Puri, learned Counsels for the appellants, submits that Notification No.32/2004-ST dated 03/12/2004 prescribes a condition that the exemption shall not apply in such cases where the credit of duty paid on inputs or capital goods used for providing such taxable service has been t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... OMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX, MUMBAI-1 2016 (11) TMI 192-CESTAT MUMBAI COMMR. OF SERVICE TAX, AHMEDABAD VERSUS CADILA PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. 2013 (1) TMI 353- GUJARAT HIGH COURT CST AHMEDABAD VERSUS M/S CADILA PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. 2010 (2) TMI 237-CESTAT, AHMEDABAD MANGALORE CHEMICALS FERTILIZERS LTD. VERSUS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER 1991 (8) TMI 83-SUPREME COURT NOVOPAN INDIA LTD. VERSUS COLLECTOR OF C. EX. AND CUSTOMS, HYDERABAD 1994 (9) TMI 67- SUPREME COURT BOMBAY CHEMICAL PVT. LTD. VERSUS COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BOMBAY 1995 (4) TMI 59-SUPREME COURT M/S ALCHEM INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL GOODS SERVICES TAX COMMISSIONERATE, FARIDABAD-1 2018 (12) TMI 86- CESTAT CHANDIGARH M/S. JAI BALAJI INDUSTRIES LIMITED VERSUS COM ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . (supra) held that: 5. The issue relating to effectiveness of a Circular contrary to a Notification statutorily issued has been examined by this Court in several cases. A Circular cannot take away the effect of Notifications statutorily issued. In fact, in certain cases, it has been held that the Circular cannot whittle down the Exemption Notification and restrict the scope of the Exemption Notification or hit it down. In other words, it was held that by issuing a circular a new condition thereby restricting the scope of the exemption or restricting or whittling it down cannot be imposed. The principle is applicable to the instant cases also, though the controversy is of different nature. 7. We also note that the lapse, if any, on the part ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
