TMI Blog2013 (10) TMI 862X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the services were used in or in relation to the manufacture of finished goods is also not disputed - the appellant have strong prima facie case in their favour – Following Secure Meters Ltd. Vs. CCE, Jaipur-II [2010 (1) TMI 284 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI] and Imagination Technologies India P. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Pune-III [2011 (4) TMI 406 - CESTAT, MUMBAI] - the requirement of pre-deposit of cenvat credit demand, interest and penalty waived for hearing of the appeal and recovery stayed till the disposal of the appeal – Stay granted. - Appeal No.E/58576/2013-SM - Stay Order No.58783/2013 - Dated:- 7-8-2013 - Shri Rakesh Kumar, J. For the Appellant : Shri Rahul Lakhwani, Chartered Accountant For the Respondent : Shri A.K. Jain, AR ORDE ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stay application. 2. Heard both sides in respect of stay application. 3. Shri Rahul Lakhwani, Chartered Accountant, ld. Counsel for the appellant, pleaded that the invoice, under which the service tax was paid by M/s.R.K. Gupta is not supplementary invoice, that the word supplementary had been added by the departmental officers, that during the period of dispute there was no provision in Rule 9 providing that when the service tax which had earlier not been paid by the service provider due to fraud, wilful mis-statement, suppression of facts, etc., is subsequently paid under a supplementary invoice, the service recipient would not be eligible for cenvat credit of such service tax, was not there, that such a provision was introduced onl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... waiver from the requirement of pre-deposit. 5. I have considered the submissions from both the sides and perused the records. In this case, the services, in question, had been provided to the appellant during 2005-2009 by M/s. R.K. Gupta. But at that time, no service tax has been paid. The service tax was paid under invoice dated 10.02.2010 when the records of M/s. R.K. Gupta were checked by audit and non-payment was pointed out. The point of dispute is as to whether the appellant can take cenvat credit of the service tax paid under the invoice dated 10.02.2010. According to the department, this case would be hit by Rule 9(1)(b) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, according to which, cenvat credit of excise duty paid on any inputs and capital goo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
