9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (11) TMI 89X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... K. Subash Chandiran, Advocates and M. Karthikeyan, M. Saravanan, K. Mani, R. Parthasarathy, Consultants, Surendranath, Branch Manager and Subhash Chandira, Auth. Rep., for the Appellant. S/Shri V.V. Hariharan, JCDR, C. Rangaraju, C. Dhanasekaran, SDRs and Ms. Indira Sisupal, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Chittaranjan Satapathy , Member (T)]. - Heard both sides. All these appeals were listed together for hearing on the ground that these cases involve a common issue. The learned advocates/consultants/authorized representatives appearing in respect of different appeals as indicated above contend that the issue involved in these appeals is decided in favour of the appellants by the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he customers. However, this submission requires verification by the field officials and, in many cases, the amounts collected from the customers being a consolidated amount, it may not be possible to verify how much towards freight and service tax on freight is being collected from the customers as a part of the consolidated price. Only in one case, the authorized representative was able to show a sample invoice and correlate the same with the freight bill to show that what is being reimbursed by the customers is only the consolidated price and the exact freight amount and nothing separately is being recovered towards service tax on freight. 3. Shri K.S. Venkatagiri, learned advocate stated that in the case at S. No.32 above, the appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the rules should have been interpreted to restrict service tax credit on transportation up to the place of removal. He further slates that transportation of the finished goods is not a business activity related to 'manufacture' which is the basis for levy of excise duty and hence such activity cannot be taken as an "input service". He cites the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Baroda Electric Meters Ltd. v Collector of Central Excise [1997 (94) E.L.T. 13 (S.C.)]. He further states that while interpreting the rule the larger Bench has not gathered the intention of the legislature from the language used by it. He states that the decision of the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Ambuja Cements Ltd. v. Un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rpreted in a way to deprive the Government of tax revenue while unjustly enriching the manufacturer. We find no direction in the cited LB decision to verify the facts of each case before allowing the credit in each case. 8. We also find that Rule 2(l)(ii) of the CENVAT Credit Rules has been interpreted applying the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court relating to exemption notifications. Defining "Input Service" for grant of credit cannot be equated to grant of exemptions. The powers for the same are contained in two different sections of the Act. Hence the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision to the effect that a specific provision will override a general one would very much apply in this case as grant of credit cannot be equated to grant o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
