TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 921X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that order denying the benefit of N/N. 32/2004-S.T., dated 3-12-2004 is not correct in law - demand set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - ST/62/2009 - FO/76382/2018 - Dated:- 25-6-2018 - Shri P.K.Choudhary, Member (Judicial) and Shri C.L.Mahar, Member (Technical) Shri Arnab Chakraborty, Advocate for the Appellant (s) Shri S.S.Chattopadhyay, Suptd.(AR) for the Respondent (s) ORDER Per Shri P.K.Choudhary The appellant is a manufacturer of aerated beverages falling under Chapters 21 and 22 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 having its factory located in the industrial area at Patliputra, Patna in the sate of Bihar for the purpose of transportation of goods manufactu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this exemption shall not apply in such cases where- (i) The credit of duty paid on inputs or capital goods used for providing such taxable service has been taken under the provisions of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004; or (ii) The goods transport agency has availed the benefit under the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) No.12/2003-Service Tax, dated the 20 th June, 2003 [G.S.R. 503(E), dated the 20th June, 2003.]. 2. This notification shall come into force on the first day of January, 2005. Notification No.12/2003-ST dated 20.06.2003 Valuation (service tax) Goods and materials sold by service provider to recipient of service value thereof, exempted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er the Notification No.12/2003-ST dated 20.06.2003 was also not availed by them. Ld. Consultant has relied on the following case laws: (i) Commissioner of Central Excise, Vapi vs. Neral Paper Mills P. Ltd. [2009(14) STR 374 (Tri.-Ahmd.)]. (ii) Commissioner of Central Excise,Customs Service Tax, vs. Neral Paper Mills P. Ltd. [2010(20) STR 601(Guj.)]. (iii) Sri Venkata Balaji Jute (P) Ltd. vs. Commr. Of C.Ex, Visakhapatnam [2010(19) STR 403 (Tri.-Bang.)] (iv) Commr. Of Central Excise, Vapi vs. Unimark Remedies Ltd. [2009(15) STR 254(Tri.-Ahmd.)]. 3. Ld. D.R. for the department reiterates the discussions and findings of the lower authorities. 4. We observe that the CBEC vide Circular No.B1/6/2005-TRU dt. 27.07.2005 clarifie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n by the goods transport agency in the consignment note issued to the effect that neither credit on inputs or capital goods used for provision of service has been taken nor the benefit of Notification dated 20-6-2003 has been taken by the respondent assessee, is required to avail an abatement of 75% in taxable service of goods transport by road. 5 . We have considered the submissions made by the learned standing counsel and also perused the orders passed by the authorities below. 6 . The Commissioner (Appeals), in his order, at length discussed this issue and found that the exemption is provided by way of notification and the Board can prescribe the procedure for availing the benefit of the said exemption notification. The C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
