TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 46X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the Appeal of Mercedes Benz India Private Limited at length and coming to the conclusion that findings recorded in the said decision on this question of law cannot be sustained. Thus keeping open contentions of both the sides, this Court allowed the Appeal filed by Assessee - Mercedes Benz India Private Limited, set aside the findings of the Tribunal and remanded the matter back to the Tribunal for fresh finding on this question of law and on the other remaining questions of law raised therein, as they were arising out of the finding to this question of law. In the instant case, as the other questions of law are incidental and arising out of the finding to above question and as the finding to above question being based on the decision ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e necessary to reproduce the questions, which the Appellant / Assessee termed as 'substantial questions of law', in both the Appeals. They read as under :- Substantial Questions of Law raised in Central Excise Appeal No.187 of 2015 (a) Whether on the facts and circumstances, the credit of service tax paid on common input services used in relation to manufacture of dutiable goods and for trading activity is not available in full ? (b) Whether on the facts and circumstances, the demand raised against the Appellants is correct when no mechanism was provided in Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 till 31.03.2011, to calculate proportionate service tax credit to be reversed, in respect of input service used for trading of goods ? ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellants, is in gross violation of the principles of natural justice ? (j) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal has erred in rejecting the contention of the Appellants that the impugned show cause notice should have been issued to the ISD of the Appellants and not to the Appellants ? (k) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal erred in invocation of extended period of limitation as envisaged under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 ? (l) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in upholding the penalty under Rule 15(2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 ? ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -1 in Appeals No.E/370, 456 and 385, all of 2011, and Appeal No. E/1019 of 2012. It is urged that in Para No.14 of its order, the Tribunal has categorically upheld its decision in the case of Mercedes Benz India Private Limited (Supra) as 100% fully applicable to the facts of the case and observed as follows :- 14. In our view, the said decision of the Tribunal in the case of Mercedes Benz is 100% fully applicable to the facts of the present case. In the said case, Mercedes Benz were manufacturing cars in India as also trading by importing certain models from abroad. This is exactly what is being done by the Appellant. They are manufacturing certain types of ball bearings and they are also involved in trading of certain ball bearings by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... may be stated that this Court has vide its order dated 11th January 2016, in Central Excise Appeal No.255 of 2014, dealt with the order passed by the Tribunal in the Appeal of Mercedes Benz India Private Limited at length and coming to the conclusion that findings recorded in the said decision on this question of law cannot be sustained. Thus keeping open contentions of both the sides, this Court allowed the Appeal filed by Assessee - Mercedes Benz India Private Limited, set aside the findings of the Tribunal and remanded the matter back to the Tribunal for fresh finding on this question of law and on the other remaining questions of law raised therein, as they were arising out of the finding to this question of law, referred above. 10. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
