2017 (9) TMI 1196

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the respondent for extraction of iron ore and fines and exporting the same. The adjudicating authority was of the view that these services are not used in or in relation to providing of any output services and respondent is not a manufacturer and hence, CENVAT credit availed and refund claim, thereof, does not arise; on an appeal, the first appellate authority has set aside the Order-in-Original and allowed the appeal. 3.1 The Revenue s contentions in this appeal is that the appellant being not a service provider could not have used the input services and availed the CENVAT credit and subsequently, claim refund of the same. 4. The learned counsel submits that similar issue has been decided by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... further contended that another ground in support of the substantial question framed in this appeal is that the CESTAT has misconceived the provisions of Rule 6(6) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 (for short the Rules in applying the same to the facts of the case by interpreting the provisions of sub-rule (1) of Rule 6 which has no application and the reasons assigned in applying Rule 6 is not only erroneous but bad in law and therefore requested to answer the question in favour of the Revenue. 3. With reference to the above said grounds urged in this appeal, we have carefully examined the same to find out as to whether the aforesaid substantial question of law would arise or not for our consideration in this Appeal. The CESTAT, having regar....