9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (5) TMI 68X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ibunal") [2014 (33) S.T.R. 255 (Tribunal)]. 3. The impugned order was passed on the appellant's application for dispensing with the pre-deposit of demand of Rs. 5.44 crores, interest thereon and equivalent penalty as imposed by order-in-original dated 24 September, 2013 of the Commissioner of Service Tax. This deposit of the amount confirmed by the order-in-original is mandatory unless dispensed with by the Tribunal under the provisions of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act read with Section 83 of Finance Act, 1994. By the impugned order dated 28 October, 2013, the Tribunal directed the appellant to deposit by reversal 35% of the Cenvat credit amount availed in respect of capital goods in addition to an amount of Rs. 1.37 crores be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ication for dispensing with pre-deposit of Cenvat credit of Rs. 5.46 crores. It is pertinent to note that the appellant had already reversed the credit of Rs. 1.37 crores in respect of inputs prior to the filing its appeal. The Tribunal by its impugned order dated 28 October, 2013 while disposing of the application for stay/dispensing with pre-deposit has directed the appellant to deposit amount of 35% of the credit availed on capital goods which comes to Rs. 79 lacs. This was in addition to the amount of Rs. 1.37 crores of Cenvat credit which had already been reversed in respect of inputs. This was on the basis of order in Galaxy Mercantile v. Commissioner of Central Excise - 2013-TIOL-1442 = 2014 (33) S.T.R. 39 (Tribunal) passed by a coor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n inputs and capital goods would be taken by the contractor. Therefore, in these circumstances, the order of the Tribunal is fair and no interference is called for. 9. We have considered the rival submissions. The Tribunal in the matter of Galaxy Mercantile (supra) was dealing with the situation similar to that in the present case. In that case also a mall had been constructed by a contractor. The Service Tax on the construction of the mall was paid at concessional rate under Works Contract (Composition Scheme for Payment of Service Tax) Rules, 2007 on the condition that the contractor would not avail credit of duty paid on inputs used by him in the construction. The Tribunal in the case of Galaxy Mercantile (supra) took a view that r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
