Case Law Details
Reynolds Petro Chem Ltd. Vs C.C.E. & S.T. (CESTAT Ahmedabad)
Held that the Adjudicating Authority had failed to follow the requirement of Section 9D of the Act regarding examination in chief of witness, therefore demand of service tax on the basis of statements of persons cannot be sustainable.
Facts-
The Investigation revealed that appellant was engaged in trading as well as providing commission services. They had received the commission/brokerage amount. Investigation also revealed that Appellant have availed the cenvat credit without having any corroborative evidence. Accordingly, show cause notice dated 14-5-2018 was issued proposing the Service tax demand alongwith interest, penalty and disallowance of Cenvat Credit.
The Additional Commissioner, Surat confirmed the demand of service tax and disallowed the Cenvat Credit. Being aggrieved, the appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who upheld the order passed by the Additional Commissioner and dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the impugned order-in-appeal present Appeals has been filed.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
