TMI Blog2008 (8) TMI 58X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... J) Shri P.R. Das, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri Manish Kumar, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order per: D.N. Panda, Member (J)]. - Present Application is for modification of stay order dated 10-6-2008 directing the Appellant to deposit 50% of the Service tax payable within 4 (four) weeks and report compliance on 23-7-2008. Moving such Application, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant submitted 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. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... duct from factory is an input service credit cannot be denied and the Appellant is entitled to relief. He further submitted that outward transportation of final product by virtue of inclusive definition up to the place of removal grants Cenvat credit interpreting such service as an input service. In view of such position, the Appellant should be considered for full stay of realization of demand. Added to this, his submission was 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 C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... envat Credit Rules, 2004 is concerned. Prima facie, perusal to the definition of input service given by Rule 2(1) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 does not throw light to understand that any service not relatable to manufacture of final product entitles to claim Cenvat credit and clearances with such facility is possible in absence of any nexus, live-link or cogent evidence bringing intimacy of 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 Author ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e decisions cited by the Appellant in the case of HEG Ltd. v. CCE, Bhopal - 2007 (6) S.T.R. 177 (Tri.-Del.). That related to a decision in respect of disposal of stay application. While that decision was rendered by the single Member Bench, it appears that Division Bench decision 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.) case was 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 t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
