9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (6) TMI 1063X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Member) The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order denying Cenvat Credit on Business Auxiliary services on the premise that debit note is not appropriate proper document as per Rule 9 of Cenvat Credit Rule, 2004 to avail Cenvat Credit of the services which are availed by the appellant which are in the nature of post manufacturing activity. 2. The facts of the case are that appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ces availed by the appellant is post manufacturing activity and therefore appellant is not entitled to take Cenvat Credit. In these set of facts, proceedings were initiated against the appellant for the period 2006-07 to 2008-09 by way of show cause notice dated 22.7.11. The matter was adjudicated. Cenvat Credit was denied. Consequently demand of duty was confirmed along with interest. Equivalent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntical issue in their own case for their unit at Wazirpur and Bhiwadi came up before this Tribunal and decided vide Final Order No. A/54830/2014 dated 30/10/2014 and A/51656-51657/2014 dated 4.4.2014. He also relied on the decision of High Court of Karnataka in the case of CCE, Bangalore vs. Stanzen Toyotetsu India (P) Ltd. [2011 (23) STR 444 (Kar)] to say that any services availed by an assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er be remanded. She further submits that debit note which was produced by the appellant is vague. On limitation she submits that in the earlier show cause notice, the only issue was that the activity of business auxiliary service is post manufacturing activity but the issue of debit note was not there in the show cause notice. Therefore, show cause notices has rightly been issued to the appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
