9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (8) TMI 1405X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Respondent. ORDER Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of aluminium casting. During the disputed period, the appellant paid service tax on Consulting Engineer Service received from abroad, in terms of Rule 2(1)(d)(iv) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994, as the recipient of such service and availed Cenvat credit. Taking of Cenvat credit was disputed by the Cent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ner (Appeals) that there is no nexus between the disputed service and the final product manufactured by the appellant, the submissions of ld. Advocate are that such ground has not been raised in the show cause notice, and thus, the Commissioner (Appeals) has traversed beyond the scope enumerated therein. 4. Per contra, Shri R.K. Gupta, the ld. DR appearing for the respondent reiterates the f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by it. 7. I find that there is no allegation in the show cause notice regarding the nexus between the disputed service and the goods manufactured by the appellant. Hence, in absence of any specific allegation made therein, the Commissioner (Appeals), in my opinion, is forbidden under law to decide such issue. Thus, he has travelled beyond the scope of show cause notice, and as such, this gr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
