TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 929X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ity with a direction to pass de novo order after considering the explanation given by the appellant vide his letter dated 22.9.2009. Appeal allowed by way of remand. - ST/28088/2013-SM - Final Order No. 20041 / 2017 - Dated:- 13-1-2017 - Shri S. S. Garg, Judicial Member Shri B. G. Chidanand Urs, CA For the Appellant Shri N. Jagadish, AR For the Respondent ORDER Per S. S. Garg The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 8.8.2013 passed by the Commissioner (A) whereby Commissioner (A) has partly allowed the appeal of the appellant and allowed the CENVAT credit on rent paid by the appellant to BBMP but the CENVAT credit on advertisement and tour operators service has been denied and also confir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the Department in the show-cause notice is due to impermissibility of levy itself on the collections effected for services rendered prior to the levy being notified into the statute. He further submitted that the appellant vide his letter dated 22.9.2009 explained all the allegations against him and has also explained the alleged short-payment of service tax but the appellate authority has not given any finding on his explanation and has only relied upon the audit objections to sustain the demand. He further submitted that the impugned order cannot be sustained on the basis of audit observation without any independent finding by the learned appellate authority and further the impugned order cannot also sustain the allegation of suppressio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ustified the invocation of limitation because the wrong doing of the appellant were noticed during the audit conducted by the department and had it not been pointed out by the audit, it would have gone unnoticed. He also relied upon the following judgments: a. Belgundi Cements v. Collector: 2016 (332) ELT A244 (SC) b. M/s. Kansai Nerolac Paints Ltd.: 2010-TIOL-35-SC-CT c. CCE, Visakhapatnam vs. Mehta Co.: 2011 (264) ELT 481 (SC) d. Continental Drugs Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs. CST, Mumbai: 2015 (39) STR 154 (Tri.-Mumbai) e. Tech Mahindra Ltd. vs. CCE, Pune-III: 2015 (38) STR 1200 (Tri.-Mumbai) f. CCE, Aurangabad vs. Laxmi Colour Lab: 2014 (36) STR 636 (Tri.-Mumbai) g. Kopran Ltd. vs. CCE, Raigad: 2011 (23) STR 627 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
