TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (2) TMI 461
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aranjan Satapathy: 2. In respect of Appeal at Sl. No. 49 above, I find that the lower appellate authority has passed the impugned order dismissing the appeal by refusing to condone the delay in filing the appeal before him. I find that the delay is within the condonable limit available to the lower appellate authority and the explanation advanced on behalf of the appellants is acceptable. Hence, I am of the view that the appeal should not have been dismissed on the ground of delay. However, with the consent of both sides, instead of remanding back this matter for fresh decision, this appeal is also taken up for decision on merit as the issue involved in this case is the same as in the case of the entire batch of 50 appeals. 3. The issue i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ation the question formulated for recording difference of opinion in Panchamahal Steel Ltd. case and applying the law laid down by the Apex court and followed by the Larger Bench, it is difficult to accept the contention that the issue involved in the matter stands referred to the Larger Bench in Panchamahal Steel Ltd. case. In fact the issue referred therein is merely to decide whether the said issue needs to be decided by the Larger Bench or not and not for the opinion of the Larger Bench on the said issue itself." 5. I further find that the said Bench has proceeded to decide the case of Shri Tubes & Steels (supra) which involved the very same issue as in this group of 50 cases and has passed the following order :- "1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....son is either a manufacturer or a provider of taxable service, there would be no need for making a provision for such a person by way of a deeming fiction, as is sought to be done under the explanation, because, such a taxable service provider or a manufacturer can always utilize the Cenvat credit, as per the Rules. However, where a person is neither a provider of taxable service nor does he manufacture any final product, difficulty may arise in cases where input service is received by a person, who by virtue of his business has to pay service tax as a recipient, and who, but for the deeming fiction, would not be able to avail the benefit of Cenvat credit and the tax burden will rest on him, though he was not a consumer. Therefore, the expl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... period prior to 19-4-2006, the consistent view taken by the Tribunal is that in view of the explanation clause the assessee would be entitled to avail the benefit of such service tax in order to claim the Cenvat Credit thereof. In view of the detailed reasoning given in Nahar Exports Ltd. case - [2008 (9) S.T.R. 252] in relation to the explanation clause, in the absence of any other material which could justify a different view in the matter, we do not find any justifiable reason to take a different view. 16. In the result therefore matter in hand relates to the period prior to 19-4-2006 while expressing our respectful agreement with the view taken in the case of Nahar Exports Ltd. case (supra), we find no case made out for interference in....