9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (10) TMI 862X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant are manufacturers of cement and clinker chargeable to central excise duty. During the period from 2005-2009, they were receiving various taxable services from M/s. R.K. Gupta. Though M/s. R.K. Gupta had service tax registration in respect of services being provided by them, in respect of certain services being provided by them they were not paying service tax. In 2010, in course of audit of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d penalty of equal amount was imposed on them vide order-in-original dated 31.7.2012 passed by the Asstt. Commissioner. This order was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide order-in-appeal dated 20.05.2013, against which this appeal has been filed along with stay application. 2. Heard both sides in respect of stay application. 3. Shri Rahul Lakhwani, Chartered Accountant, ld. Counsel for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t disputed and the fact that the input service had been used for providing the taxable output services is also not disputed, the credit of service tax paid on the input services, even if paid subsequently under supplementary invoices, cannot be denied, that the same view has been taken by the Tribunal in the case of Imagination Technologies India P. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Pune-III reported in 2011 (23) STR ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ice provider, M/s. R.K. Gupta under supplementary invoice. He, therefore, pleaded that this is not a case for 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. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... put services and was introduced w.e.f. 1.4.2011. Moreover, in this case, the receipt of the services, in question, by the appellant is not disputed and the fact that the services were used in or in relation to the manufacture of finished goods is also not disputed. In view of this, I am of the view that the appellant have strong prima facie case in their favour, more so, in view of the judgements ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
