2020 (6) TMI 13

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....y contended that the Revenue has raised the very same demand which was deleted earlier by this very Bench and therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable. 2.2.1 He referred to the Order of this Bench in Final Order No. 1834 of 2009 dated 27.11.2009 for the period March 2005 to January 2006, which is placed at pages 46 to 50 of the Appeal Memorandum, wherein this Bench has inter alia held in favour of the assessee after recording the facts that the appellant during the course of manufacture of 'pneumatic tyres' availed the credit of duty paid on inputs and capital goods and Service Tax paid on input services and had paid Service Tax of Rs. 2,52,476/- through debit in their CENVAT Account of inputs and capital goods as they were the per....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ing filed its reply had inter alia contended that the very issue itself had been decided in their favour by the Tribunal, but however, the Adjudicating Authority vide Order-in-Original dated 26.09.2018 confirmed the demand and thereafter, the same has been upheld by the First Appellate Authority vide impugned order. 2.4 Ld. Advocate concluded that the demand amounts to double levy by two different Officers, which is not sustainable. 3. Per contra, Shri. M. Jagan Babu, Ld. Departmental Representative appearing for the Revenue, supported the findings of the lower authorities. 4.1 I find, after going through the documents placed on record as also after hearing both sides, that the very same demand was challenged before this Bench which had ....