TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 1200X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - Dated:- 26-4-2018 - MR. S.S GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER Shri R. DAKSHINA MURTHY, Advocate For the Appellant Shri Parashivamurthy, Dy. Commisisoner(AR) For the Respondent Per: S.S GARG The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dt 24/10/2017 passed by the Commissioner(Appeals) whereby the Commissioner(Appeals) rejected appeal of the appellant and upheld the Order-in-Original and directed the original authority to verify the taxable services for the disputed period and recover the appropriate service tax from the appellant. 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellant is an authorized dealer for Toyota Kirloskar Motor Pvt. Ltd. dealing in motor cars and was duly registered with the Ser ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sed to impose penalties under Section 76 or under Rule 15(3) of the CENVAT Credit Rules and also penalties under Section 77 (1)(b) and Section 70. The Statement of Demand dt. 03/03/2015, in para 9(i) has alleged that issue involved was the wrong availment of CENVAT credit accrued towards service station credit (as per facts mentioned in para 7 of the show-cause notice dt. 30/10/2013) . As per para 7 of the earlier show-cause notice dt 30/10/2013, the Department has proposed to deny the CENVAT credit on the ground that the appellant was not eligible for availing the CENVAT credit on the input service i.e. servicing done by other authorized service station, as the vehicle gets totally serviced at the other service station and no further se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed on totally different ground on the ground that the appellant had failed to comply with the provisions of Rule 6 of the CENVAT Credit Rules. He also submitted that on the issue of eligibility of credit on input services, this Tribunal in the appellant's own case for the earlier period 2009-10 to 2010-11 had allowed the appeal vide Final Order No.20707/2017 dt. 25/01/2017. He further submitted that as per the settled legal position, the Revenue cannot travel beyond the show-cause notice and cannot set up a new case which was not canvassed in the show-cause notice. In support of this, he relied upon the following decisions:- i. CCE vs. sun Pharmaceuticals Inds. Ltd. [2015(326) ELT 3 (SC)] ii. Caprihans India Ltd. Vs. CCE [2015(325 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Demand dt. 03/03/2015 and relied upon various decisions cited supra. Now doubt, perusal of the impugned order clearly shows that there is no finding on the issue raised in the Statement of Demand. Since there is no finding with regard to the material issue raised by the appellant, I am of the considered view that this case needs to be remanded back to the original authority to pass a fresh order considering the allegations in the Statement of Demand dt. 03/03/2015 as the same is necessary for the final disposal of the case. Accordingly, the case is remanded back to the original authority. The original authority is directed to comply with the principles of natural justice and afford an opportunity to the appellant to produce the documents ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
