TMI Blog2009 (12) TMI 287X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eal before Tribunal, the department cannot plead that service in respect of which Service tax was paid by the service provider and of which service credit was taken by the appellants, was not taxable. It is settled law that while considering the Cenvat credit on the basis of invoices of input service provider or input goods supplier the assessment at the end of service provider or input goods manufacturer cannot be reopened. - that in view of the Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of CC Bombay v. G.T.C. Industries Ltd. ( 2008 -TMI - 31592 - CESTAT MUMBAI ) and also in view of the judgment Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of Coca Cola India Ltd. ( 2009 -TMI - 34433 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT ) service in question will have to be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the appellants under Rule 15 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. On appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) against order of the Asst. Commissioner, the Commissioner (Appeals) vide impugned Order-in-Appeal No. 35(GRM)ST/JPR-I/2007 dated 15-2-2007 upheld the order of the Asst. Commissioner but reduced the penalty to Rs. 10,000/-. It is this order of the Commissioner (Appeals) against which the appellants filed appeal before this Tribunal. 2. Learned Advocate for the appellants pleaded that the service was being provided by M/s. A. Kumar Co., M/s. Rajasthan Engg. Enerprises, M/s. Aniket Associates and M/s. Electromech Engineers for procuring sale orders and collecting payment from the customers; that on the basis of invoices of these service pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r is not correct. 3. Shri V.K. Saxena, learned Jt. CDR pleaded that the Cenvat credit has been taken in respect of Service tax paid on the commission for bill collection charges; that bill collection service was not taxable service during that period and, hence, Cenvat credit of tax, if any, paid on the commission for such service was not admissible. He, however, does not dispute that service providers were registered under Business Auxiliary Service. 4. In rejoinder, Shri Hemant Bajaj, learned Advocate, pleaded that since the ground raised by learned Jt. CDR has not been taken in the show cause notice, the same cannot be raised at this stage and in this regard he relied upon the following judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court :- (1) CCE ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
