9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2012 (3) TMI 269X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s to make a pre-deposit of Rs.97 lakhs. The said order was challenged by the applicants before the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in Central Excise Appeal No. 117 of 2010, which was disposed of by the Hon'ble High Court on 26.10.2010 by setting aside the said stay order passed by this Tribunal and directed the Tribunal to consider the application afresh by a reasoned order following the principles of natural justice. Hence, this application is before us. 2. The facts of the case are that the applicants are registered under the category of "Commercial or Industrial Construction Services" and filing their ST-3 return periodically by availing the benefit of Notification No. 15/2004 dated 10.9.2004 upto 1.3.2006 and thereafter Notification No. 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d. 4. On the other hand, Shri A.N. Sharma, learned Commissioner (A.R.) strongly opposed the stay application and submitted that in the earlier stay order, the applicants were directed to make a pre-deposit of Rs.97 lakhs and the same may be considered here also. He further submitted that as per ST-3 return filed by the applicants during the period March, 06 to Sept, 06, they have availed credit and simultaneously claimed the exemption under Notification No. 1/2006. By availing credit, the applicants violated the basic condition of the above said Notification which stipulates that the Notification will not apply in the cases where CENVAT Credit of duty paid on inputs or capital goods or on input services used for providing such taxable serv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wati Sugar Mills Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-III-2011 (270) ELT 465 (SC) and Commissioner of Central Excise, Ghaziabad Vs. Radhu Products (P) Ltd. - 2010 (260) ELT 28 (Tri-Del). In view of the above, he prayed that the applicants be directed to make a pre-deposit. 5. Heard both sides in detail. 6. After hearing both sides, we find that the claim of the applicants is that they have availed CENVAT Credit for input/input services prior to 1.3.2006 when the Notification No. 1/2006 came into force. When these input services were received by the applicant, there was no bar for availment of CENVAT Credit. Moreover, in the case of input services, the credit was availed on payment of remuneration for the services during that period. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pplicant. We also find that for an amount of credit of Rs.19.62 lakhs, no assessee would like to forgo the benefit of 67% of the abatement as granted by the Notification. We find Principal Bench at New Delhi in the case of Sachdeva Roadlines (P) Ltd., (supra) was considering an identical issue wherein the Cenvat credit of Rs.1.10 lakhs were availed and demand was raised for approximately Rs.1.39 crores, denying the benefit of abatement. It is also noted that the applicant has reversed the entire amount of credit of Rs.19.62 lakhs. 11. We are of the considered opinion that the issue in this case may be covered by the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in the case of Hello Minerals Water (P) Ltd (supra). An identical situation w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
