2024 (6) TMI 908

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....learned counsel representing Sri Lakshmi Kumaran Sridharan, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. Heard on admission. 3. This appeal filed under Section 35 G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 takes exception to the order of CESTAT, Regional Bench, Hyderabad, in appeal No.ST/30206 of 2018 decided on 04.07.2023. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that there was a tripartite settlement between respondent Automobile Companies and the Insurance Company. The case of appellant is that although the invoices and the returns were available showing the business and transaction between the Automobile Companies and Insurance Company, in fact, it was a sham arrangement. In order to bolster the said contention, it was pointed out that th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the matter, it cannot be said that the view of the Madras High Court in the case in M/s Modular Auto Limited (supra) has attained finality. It is submitted that the Tribunal has certainly erred in deciding in favour the assesses and the appeal deserves to be admitted on the following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether the decision of the CESTAT dated 04.07.2023 is correct in allowing the assessee's appeal despite his ineligibility for input services credited in terms of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 and also 2. Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that unless and until the assessment made by the dealer is revised the credit at the recipient's end cannot be denied? 7. The other side opposed the prayer. 8. W....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nition of Rule 2 (l) of the CCR 2004. The entire case has been built on the ground that absolutely no service was rendered by the car dealers. For coming to this conclusion, the Department has relied upon only two Recorded statements of the dealers out of more than 100 dealers of the Appellant. Even these two officials have given a different version when they were cross examined. In such a case no evidentiary value can be placed on the Recorded Statements of these officials. Further there is no allegation coming up in the Show Cause Notice that TBSS have not recorded the transactions with car dealers in their books of accounts. It is not in dispute whether TBSS has paid the full invoice value along with the Service Tax to the car dealers. I....