9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (8) TMI 58X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tted that the Appellant having a strong case, the stay order passed earlier may be modified and necessary orders as deemed fit and proper may be passed. He submitted that on the earlier date of hearing i.e. 10-6-2008 an adjournment application dated 6-6-2008 was moved by e-mail as well as a hard copy by courier was sent to Registry. Aforesaid direction was passed in absence of the Appellant since none appeared. He submitted that the Appellant is entitled to Cenvat Credit on Service tax paid on G.T.A. relating to outward freight since ownership of goods and property therein remained with the Appellant till delivery. Such a mode of delivery covered loss or damage in transit to the account of the Appellant. Accordingly the Appellant is covered ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s that the Appellant was in financial difficulty which does not permit it to make deposit of the demanded amount. 3. Shri Manish Kumar, learned Departmental Representative (JDR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue submitted that the decision of the Division Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Gujarat Ambuja Cements Ltd. v. CCE, Ludhiana - 2007 (6) S.T.R. 249 (Tribunal) = 2007 (212) E.L.T. 410 (Tri.-Del.) having held that the interpretation of the term 'input' is not extendable to the duty paid on removal of the final products, any interpretation other than that shall run counter to the basic structure of the law and the Cenvat credit shall be misused by any disharmon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f each other for the phraseology used in the Rule. Both the Authorities below have concurrently observed that there was no evidence before them to arrive at a conclusion that the service in question availed (GTA) by the Appellant had suffered tax and directly attributable for use in or in relation to manufacture of final product. Learned appellate Authority below discarded the plea of the Appellant that C.B.E.C.'s Circular No. 97/8/07-S.T., dated 23-8-2007 was applicable to the case of the Appellant. For the very reason that the claim was not supported by any evidence as required by the law and when there is concurrent finding on the question of evidence, we are not inclined to agree at this stage for waiver of pre-deposit fully. Also t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not before that Bench since the said order by a single Member Bench was passed on 18-12-2006 while division Bench decision came to see light of the day on 14-3-2007. 5.5 The Appellant's contention that they are in financial crisis has received our consideration. But the Appellant could not bring out any evidence to support its claim. In absence of any material evidence for such plea and for the concurrent finding by both the Authorities below as stated above we are of the view that Revenue shall be prejudiced if there shall be an order waiving pre-deposit fully during pendency of the Appeal following Apex Court decision in the case of M/s. Benara Valves Ltd. v. CCE - 2008 (12) S.T.R. 104 (S.C.) = 2006 (204) E.L.T. 513 (S.C.) and M/s. I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
