2022 (12) TMI 1052

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ing the demand in respect of the other part. 2. The only issue to be decided is: whether the denial of CENVAT Credit, to the extent it is appealed against, is correct in law? 3. I have heard Shri C. Baktha Siromoni, Learned Advocate, appearing for the appellant and Shri M. Ambe, Learned Deputy Commissioner, appearing for the Revenue. 4. I have considered the rival contentions (both verbal and written arguments) and have also perused the documents placed on record. 5.1 The primary contention of the appellant, as argued through its Advocate, is against the denial of Service Tax credit (under reverse charge mechanism) for the services of Manpower Agency and for the services of transport of goods by transporters. The Learned Advocate would ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n nature and not applicable for the period of dispute involved in the present case. 5.3 He placed reliance on an order of the Ahmedabad Bench of the CESTAT in the case of M/s. Aalidhra Textool Engineers Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Daman [Excise Appeal No. 13027 of 2018 - Final Order No. A/10098/2020 dated 10.01.2020] in support of his above claim that the rules could only be prospective in nature. 6. Per contra, the Learned Deputy Commissioner for the Revenue supported the findings of the lower authorities. He also referred to Rule 9(5) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, which the appellant failed to comply with and consequently, argued that the orders of the lower authorities are in order. 7. It is not in d....