TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 828X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o 30.11.2011 - Held that:- The Ld. Advocate has taken a specific contention that there was no service availed post 01.04.2011 and that only the invoice was raised and the credit was availed subsequently. This requires factual verification. Appeal allowed in part and part matter on remand. - E/42598, 42599, 42600, 42601 & 42602/2017 - 42596-42600/2018 - Dated:- 11-10-2018 - Shri P Dinesha, Member (Judicial) For the Appellant : Ms. S. Sridevi, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri. S. Govindarajan, AC (AR) ORDER This appeal is filed by the assessee challenging the Order-in-Appeal No. 102/2017 dated 04.09.2017 passed by the Commissioner of G.S.T. Central Excise (Appeals-I), Chennai, wherein the Commissioner (Appeals) ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. 4. I have heard the rival contentions, perused the documents placed on record and have also gone through the decisions referred to during the course of arguments. 5.1 From the compilation of case-law submitted by the Ld. Advocate, I find that the issue relating to Rent-a-Cab Service has already been addressed to and decided, for the period prior to 01.04.2011, by the jurisdictional High Court in the case of C.C.E. S.T., LTU, Chennai Vs. M/s. Turbo Energy Ltd. 2015-TIOL-629-HC-MAD-CX and the relevant observations of the Hon ble High Court is as under: 19. The issue raised in respect of rent-a-cab services has been considered by the Karnataka High Court in the case of CCE V. Stanzen Toyotetsu India (P) Ltd. reported in 2011 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issue in favour of the assessee. 5.2 From the above observations of the Hon ble jurisdictional High Court, I find that the issue up to 01.04.2011 is no more res integra and therefore, I set aside the impugned Order to this extent. 6. For the subsequent period i.e, up to 30.11.2011, the Ld. Advocate has taken a specific contention that there was no service availed post 01.04.2011 and that only the invoice was raised and the credit was availed subsequently. This requires factual verification. I am therefore of the view that the appellant is required to establish its case on the above lines before the adjudicating authority and if the assertion of the appellant discussed supra is found to be correct, then there is no question of denyi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
