2018 (9) TMI 1834

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....to set aside the aforesaid judgment and order-in-original dated 14.10.2014 passed by the Commissioner, Central Excise, Jaipur (for short 'the Adjudicating Authority') be restored. Aforesaid appeal was admitted by this Court vide order dated 14.02.2018 on the following substantial question of law: "Whether the learned CESTAT was right in law in holding that the Cenvat Credit of Goods Transport Agency services for outward transportation of goods beyond the place of removal is eligible within the meaning of 'input service' as defined under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004?" The assessee has also filed Cross Objection No. 27/2018 raising the question of limitation, which remained unadjudicated by the Tribunal. The cross-objection filed by the a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ginal demand order, disallowing claim of CENVAT Credit of Rs. 73,58,446/- and charged interest and penalty thereon. The respondent-assessee, being aggrieved by the order, preferred appeal before the Tribunal, which vide judgment dated 07.08.2017 allowed the appeal and set aside the original demand order dated 14.10.2014. Hence, this appeal. Mr. Siddharth Ranka, learned counsel for the appellantrevenue has submitted that the Tribunal has failed to take into consideration that the words, "clearance of final products from the place of removal" appearing in the definition of "input service" under Rule 2(l) of the Rules of 2004 prior to 01.03.2008 were amended by Notification No. 10/2008-CE(NT), dated 01.03.2008 by substituting the same with t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ainst the Revenue by this Court. The Revenue preferred SLP against the said decision of this Court. Therefore, hearing of the present matter may be deferred till the final decision of the Supreme Court, as according to learned counsel, the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise Service Tax Vs. Ultra Tech Cement Ltd. (supra) has not noticed many important aspects, the matter therefore needs to be reconsidered. Moreover, learned counsel submitted that there is no dispute about the fact that the period of demand involved in the show cause notice is from May, 2010 to December, 2012 and the show cause notice was issued as late as on 03.07.2013. Therefore the demand for the period from May, 2010 to April, 2012 is hit by limit....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....com 318 (SC); judgment of this Court in Vodafone Digilink Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur-II, 2013 (29) STR 229 (Raj.); judgment of Madras High Court in Days Inn Deccan Plaza Vs. Commr. Of S.T. (Appeals), Chennai-I, 2016 (45) S.T.R. 502 (Mad.); Mohan Breweries & Distilleries Ltd. Vs. Commr. Of C.Ex. Pondicherry, 2015 (325) E.L.T. 42 (Mad.), judgment of Gujarat High Court in Salasar Dyeing & Printing Mills (P) Ltd. Vs. C.C.E. & C., Surat-I, 2013 (290) E.LT. 322 (Guj.); Commissioner of C.Ex., Surat-I Vs. Neminath Fabrics Pvt. Ltd., 2010 (256) E.L.T. 369 (Guj.); judgment of Kerala High Court in Kuttukaran Trading Ventures Vs. C.C.E., Cus. & Service Tax, Cochin, 2014 (35) S.T.R. 481 (Ker.); judgment of Allahabad High Court in Co....