2017 (1) TMI 1364

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rder Learned counsel brings out that while the dispute is on the claim of CENVAT credit in respect of services provided at the premises of the client, none of the authorities below have understood the relevancy of the input credit claimed to provide taxable output service in the premises of the client of the appellant. Factually, the appellant carried LDPE shrink film to the premises of M/s. Khan....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s claimed as CENVAT credit by the appellant. There is also no dispute as to the use of above input service by the appellant in providing packing service to its clients. 2. The only dispute relates to goods transport agency service availed by the appellant. The service so availed was to carry LDPE shrink films to the premises of the aforesaid clients. That being integrally connected with the outpu....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....o transport the input to provide output service of packing. 6. While the issue is very simple as above, the adjudicating authority even though passed 27 pages adjudication order, only made an academic exercise without understanding the controversy arising out of show cause notice. Similarly, learned Commissioner (Appeals) has also not understood what that was the case of the Revenue. Appellant is....