9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (4) TMI 860X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ially takes place in two segments i.e. (a) the Original Equipment (OE) Segment (Vehicle Manufacturers) and (b) the Replacement Segment. In the OE segment the purchaser which is the Original Equipment Manufacturer takes CENVAT Credit of the duty paid on the Inputs procured by him. In the replacement market no such CENVAT Credit is taken by the Purchaser. Tyre, Tube and Flap are excisable goods on which Excise Duty is also actually paid. The appellant procures Tube and Flap on payment of duty. Such tubes and flaps are admittedly components/accessories and therefore inputs as far as the appellant's manufactured final product namely tyre is concerned. In the light of the above facts narrated with respect to sale in the two Segments, tubes and f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... since no CENVAT has also been availed of the duty paid by the concerned manufacturer on the tube and flap. The case of the department is that the sale of tube and flap on which no duty is paid is exempted service being a trading activity therefore the appellant is liable to pay proportionate credit of Cenvat in respect of Service Tax paid on input service attributed to such trading activity. The adjudicating authority has confirmed the demand of Cenvat Credit therefore, the present appeal was filed. 2. Shri Joseph Kodianthara Learned Sr. Advocate with Ms. Shweta Garge Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant at the outset submits, firstly for the purpose of calculation entire Cenvat credit of service tax was taken which is absolutely ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CENTRAL EXCISE, CHANDIGARH (216) ELT 177 (SC) AND 2007 * UNIWORTH TEXTILES LTD. VS. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, RAIPUR - 2013 (288) ELT 161 (SC). * THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE VS. APPOLLO TYRES LTD- 2010 TIOL 670 HC KERALA-CX * M/S APOLLO TYERS LTD VS. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, VADODARA- 2014-TIOL-3135-CESTAT-AHM * RUNGTA SIZING WORKS & PROCESS VS. CCE, THANE-1-2006 (206) E.L.T. 974 (Tri Mumbai) 3. Shri Tara Praksah, Learned Deputy Commissioner (AR) appearing on behalf of the revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned orders. 4. On careful consideration of the submission made by both the sides and perusal of record, we find that the demand of proportionate credit in respect of the service for manufacture as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
