Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2011 (3) TMI 1264

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... cost of freight is paid and borne by the manufacturer would be “input service” within the meaning of this term as defined in Rule 2(l) of the CCR, 2004 Regarding time limitation - Held that:- Mere submission that there were different decisions taking conflicting views cannot by itself be sufficient to hold the demand as time barred - no case having been made out for total waiver of amount demanded - Appeallant is directed to deposit 60% of the amount demanded - E/348/2010 - S/310/2011-WZB/C-II/(EB) - Dated:- 7-3-2011 - Justice R.M.S. Khandeparkar, Shri P.R. Chandrasekharan, JJ. Shri M.P. Joshi, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri S.S. Katiyar, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Justice R.M.S. Khandeparkar, President (Ora .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... T, Bangalore, reported in 2009 (15) S.T.R. 23 (Tri.-LB) has already been stayed by the Karnataka High Court. He further submitted that in terms of decision of the Tribunal in the case of L.G. Electronics (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Noida, reported in 2010 (19) S.T.R. 340 (Tri. - Del) read with the decision of the Punjab Haryana High Court in the case of Ambuja Cements Ltd. v. UOI, reported in 2009 (236) E.L.T. 431 (P H) = 2009 (14) S.T.R. 3 (P H) the issue involved in the matter is necessarily to be answered in favour of the appellants and therefore, the appellants have made out a prima facie case for total waiver of the amount demanded under the impugned order. He further submitted that there were conflicting decision on the issue invo .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ood by referring to amended provision of the definition of input service and this aspect was considered by the Punjab Haryana High Court in Ambuja Cements Ltd. As regards the pendency of the matter in the Karnataka High Court, undisputedly at this stage the decision delivered by the Larger Bench in ABB Ltd case has already been stayed by the Karnataka High Court. In other words, therefore, as the matter stand s today, there is no Larger Bench decision in favour of the appellants. 6. Mere pendency of an issue before the High Court itself cannot give a justification for the Tribunal not to look into the matter or adjourn the matter on that ground. It is the duty of the Tribunal to decide the matter as and when it is brought before the Tri .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... charges are integral part of the price of the goods, the GTA service availed for transportation of the goods up to the customer s door steps would be treated as input service and would be eligible for Cenvat credit. 7. The Tribunal in the case of L.G. Electronics (India) Pvt. Ltd. has clearly held that it is the place of removal that is relevant aspect to be considered while dealing with the claim relating to the inputs service. Bearing this in mind and after taking into consideration the decision of the Punjab Haryana High Court in the case of Ambuja Cements Ltd., and applying the same to the facts of the case, it being not in dispute that it was not the case of the appellants that the place of removal was at the door step of the cus .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... during the period under consideration. Equally it is true that there could arise a situation where there can be different decisions taking conflicting view on the same issue. Otherwise to hold that different decision can create doubt about the correct legal situation, though the decision should be a reasoned decision; merely because there are some orders of two or three lines disposing of the matter without any analysing of the issue, the same cannot be held to be the decision to say the order to be a decision laying down a proposition of law. The order should apparently reveal consideration on rival contentions in relation to the issue under consideration and logical conclusions being arrived at by the adjudication authority. The law in th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates