9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (7) TMI 306X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellant from the benefit of abatement of 75%. The Ahmadabad Tribunal in the case of CST AHMEDABAD VERSUS M/S CADILA PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. [ 2010 (2) TMI 237 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD ] has held that The Board had clarified that the endorsement has to be made on the consignment note. Further, we have to take note of the fact that the notification, as such, does not stipulate any such condition. Notification requiring the receiver of the service to pay the tax also does not stipulate any such condition. Therefore, the requirements prescribed by the Board as per circular cannot be mandatory and cannot be used for denying substantive rights. It is not the case of the Revenue that the appellants have not received the service or service tax has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 564/- paid by the Appellant. However, he has confirmed the balance demand of Rs.16,158/- along with interest and also imposed penalty of Rs.42,722/-. Being aggrieved, the Appellant has filed an Appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) has given a finding that the Appellant has not brought in any evidence to the effect that no Cenvat Credit was availed by the transporter. But he has made a note that the Appellant has submitted a Xerox copy of the declaration made by M/s Vivekanand Roadlines stating that no Cenvat Credit was taken by them. 3. It has been consistently held by various co-ordinate Benches of this Tribunal that the condition specified is by way of CBEC Circular and is not a mandatory condition speci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce or service tax has not been paid . Therefore, we find that the Commissioner s order is just and fair and does not require any interference. Further, as rightly pointed out, in the absence of an appeal against the Tribunal s order, remanding the matter for verification of evidence, that order becomes final and Revenue cannot be challenge the impugned order, ignoring the remand order. [Emphasis Supplied] 5. In the case of Aarti Industries Ltd. Vs. CCE, Surat-2012 (26) S.T.R. 154 (Tri.-Ahmd.), the Tribunal has held as under:- 2 . The learned counsel submits that the decision has been taken on the basis of the circular issued by the Board No. B1/6/2005-TRU, dated 27-7-2005 wherein the service providers of GTA services were ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
