TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (11) TMI 221
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e, for the Respondent. [Order] . - The appeal No. E/2338/08 filed by the department is against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) No. 122(DK)/CE/JPR-II/2008 dated 25-8-2008. 1.2 The appeal No. E/2340/08 filed by the department is against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) No. 126(DK)/CE/JPR-II/2008 dated 26-8-2008. 1.3 These two appeals involve a common issue, and therefore they are ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....4. Learned SDR reiterated the findings and reasoning of the Commissioner (Appeals). 5. Learned Advocate for the respondents strongly supports the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). She also relies on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of India Cements Ltd. v. CCE, Salem reported in 2007-TIOL-645-CESTAT-MAD = 2007 (7) S.T.R. 569 (Tri. - Chennai) = 2008 (223) E.L.T. 78 (Tribunal) and the de....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....upplier of inputs, the credit on the inputs as well as on the service tax paid would have been available to the respondents as recipients. The recipient has paid the service tax as deemed service provider in terms of Section 68 of the Act and read with Rule 2(1)(d) of the Service Tax Rules. It is not disputed that they were also recipients of GTA services. As both deemed service provider of servic....