9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (5) TMI 871X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... circumstances of present case impugned stay order dated April 21, 2014 passed by the CESTAT directing the Appellants to deposit Rs.40 lakhs with interest as a condition precedent for hearing the Appeal is correct in law inasmuch as Appellants have demonstrated strong prima-facie case & thus made out a case for complete waiver of pre-deposit of duty, interest & penalty? B. Whether in facts & circumstances of present case impugned stay order dated April 21, 2014 passed by the CESTAT directing the Appellants to deposit Rs.40 lakhs with interest as a condition precedent for hearing the Appeal is correct in law inasmuch as Appellants have demonstrated that duty demand has no legs to stand in view of binding precedents namely Metro Shoes Pvt. Lt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... om it under the provisions of Rule 14 of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 read with the provisions of Section 11A of the Central Excise Act 1944 together with interest and penalty. The order makes the following demand:- "(i) I hereby order for recovery of the Service Tax credit amounting to Rs.51,44,507/- availed by the noticees, during the period from August 2011 to March 2012, under rule 14 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944; (ii) I order for recovery of the applicable interest on the amount of Service Tax credit wrongly availed as above, under the provisions of rule 14 of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 read with Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944; and (iii) I impose a penalty of Rs.5 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ner is present and has noted the order. This is sufficient intimation to the petitioner of its obligations under this order. Stay application is accordingly disposed of." Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the Appellate Tribunal was not justified in placing reliance upon a decision of the Tribunal rendered in Ultra Tech Cement Vs. C.C.E. Raipur reported in 2014-TIOL-478-CESTAT-DEL as the issue was actually covered by a decision of the Tribunal rendered in LG Electronics (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. C.C.E. reported in 2010(19) STR 340 (Tri-Del). It is seen that the decision of the Tribunal rendered in L.G. Electronics (supra) has been considered by the Tribunal in the subsequent decision rendered in Ultra Tech Cement (supra). It ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
