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

2016 (11) TMI 779

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... .2008. Thereafter there was an amendment in the definition of input services. The lower authorities would examine the effect of the amendment and would re-decide the issue accordingly for the period after 01.04.2008. As such till the said period, the demand raised against the assessee is set aside and for the period subsequent to same is remanded for fresh decision. Appeal allowed - matter on remand - decided partly in favor of appellant. - Appeal No. E/3680/2010-EX(SM) - Final Order No. 54105/2016-EX (SM) - Dated:- 17-10-2016 - Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) Shri Arvind Arora, Advocate for the Applicants Shri R.K. Mishra, DR for the Respondent ORDER Per Archana Wadhwa The Appellants manufacture goods on w .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... y this order of the Commissioner (Appeal), the Appellants have filed this Appeal. 3. The main argument of the Appellants is that the exemption under Notification 214/86 is an exemption for intermediate product to be used by the principal in the manufacture of dutiable goods and this exemption is on a different footing as compared to other exemption and they are eligible to take Cenvat credit on the inputs used in such intermediate goods. They rely on the decision of the Larger Bench of Tribunal in Sterlite Industries (I) Ltd Vs. CCE-2005 (183) ELT (Tri-LB). They further point out that as per the decision of Karnataka High Court in the case of in CCE Vs. ABB Ltd-2011 (23) STR 97 (Kar), they were eligible to take Cenvat Credit of GTA servi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ppreciated. There is no difference between the inputs and input services credit and the issue being the same i.e. clearance of goods for job work in terms of notification number 214/86-CE, the denial of credit, whether it be on inputs or on input services, cannot be upheld. It is the ratio of the law declared by the Larger Bench which is required to be made applicable. 7. Otherwise also I find that the Tribunal in the case of JBF Industries Vs. CCE Vapi 2014 (34) STR 345 (Tri-Ahmd.) has held that in view of the law declared by the Larger Bench, input services credit taken by the appellant in respect of goods sent for job work in 214/86-CE cannot be denied. In fact, I find that the Tribunal in the same assessee s case has set aside the co .....

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