TMI Blog2013 (6) TMI 394X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... V J Sankaram, Adv. For the Respondent : Mr R K Singla, Commissioner (AR) Per: P G Chacko: The stay application filed in appeal No.E/2908/2012 seeks waiver and stay in respect of CENVAT credit of Rs.1,99,31,878/- denied to them for the period from April 2008 to March 2010 and equal amount of penalty imposed on them. The CENVAT credit in question was taken on GTA service availed for outward transportation of final product (cement) from the factory to customers' premises during the said period. After hearing both sides, we have found prima facie case for the appellant for the period upto 31/03/2008 on the strength of the Hon'ble High Court's decision in the case of CCE, Bangalore Vs. ABB Ltd. [2011 (23) STR 97 (Kar.)). However, for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , market research, storage upto the place of removal, procurement of inputs, accounting, auditing, financing, recruitment and quality control, coaching and training, computer networking, credit rating, share registry, security, business exhibition, legal services, inward transportation of inputs or capital goods and outward transportation upto the place of removal; but excludes services,- As per the amended definition of 'input service', any service used by the manufacturer of final product, whether directly or indirectly, in or in relation to the manufacture of final product and clearance of final product up to the place of removal is an 'input service' on which CENVAT credit could be claimed for a period after 31/3/2008. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (supra). We need not reiterate the arguments. Prima facie, the appellant is not entitled to CENVAT credit on GTA service used by them for outward transportation of cement from their factory to customers' premises from 01/04/2008. Appellant has also pleaded limitation against a part of the impugned demand. However, the amount of CENVAT credit for the normal period has not been furnished by the appellant. The plea of limitation has been opposed by the learned Commissioner (AR). This plea of the appellant does not appear to be impressive on the facts of this case. There is a plea of financial hardships also, which has not been substantiated. The papers produced by the counsel today (Profit and Loss account etc.) pertain to a period upto 30/06/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
