TMI Blog2020 (6) TMI 13X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Authorized Representative (A.R.) for the Respondent ORDER This appeal is filed by the assessee against the Order-in-Appeal No. 95/2019 (CTA-I) dated 06.03.2019 whereby the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld the denial of CENVAT Credit. 2.1 Today when the matter was taken up for hearing, Shri. Karthik Sundaram, Ld. Advocate appearing for the assessee-appellant, vehemently 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, whe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ld. Advocate further argued that inspite of the above, the Revenue issued a Show Cause Notice dated 18.03.2011 alleging that the appellant had taken credit of ₹ 2,98,186/- on the GTA Services received by them during the period from June 2005 to March 2006 to which the appellant was not entitled to and thereby proposing to disallow and recover the same along with applicable interest. The appellant having 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 con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee-appellants/respondents have held them to be service providers for the period up to 18.04.2006 solely on the ground of the Explanation to the definition of output service under Rule 2 (p). Hence, with the deletion of the Explanation with effect from 19.04.2006, the benefit of these decisions cannot be extended to them for the period from 19.04.2006. As far as the period beyond 18.04.2006 is concerned, the Tribunal in the case of Alsthom Ltd. Vs. C.C.E. 2008 (12) S.T.R. 23 has also dealt with the issue for this period and has held in that case that the credit cannot be utilized for paying service tax for this period as well. As such, as far as the period beyond 18.04.2006 is concerned, I hold that the appellant/respondent-asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
