TMI Blog2008 (10) TMI 118X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... K.K. Agarwal, Member (T) Shri Prakash Shah, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri A.K. Prasad, Jt CDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : M.V. Ravindran, Member (J)]. - This stay petition is directed against the waiver of pre-deposit of the amount of service tax of Rs. 9.74 crores and Rs 10.82 lakhs and equivalent amount of penalty imposed under various sections of the Finance Act, 1994. 2. The necessary facts that arise for consideration are that the applicants herein was engaged in providing construction services, i.e. construction of commercial and industrial building, residential complexes and civil structures as defined in Section 65 of the Finance Act, 1994. 3. The lower authorities while scrutinizing the records for t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... March 2006 to June 2006 was in respect of the services received by them prior to the date of Notification No. 1/06 came to existence. 5. It is his submission that prior to this Notification, earlier Notification No. 15/04-ST dated 1-9-2004 granted them the benefit of inputs stage credit on the services availed by them. It is in contention that the availment of the credit subsequently is well within the law as the applicants had made the payment to the service providers during the period March 2006 to June 2006 and utilized the credit for the services rendered by them prior to 1-3-2006. It is also his submission that the entire service tax credit taken by them was Rs. 19.62 lakhs and they have reversed this credit immediately on being po ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n No. 1/2006. It is his submission that the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Reliance Industries Ltd, and Sachdeva Roadlines (P) Ltd ., would not be of any consequence as in this case the applicant has availed and utilized the credit. It is his submission that the applicant should put to some strict condition for hearing and disposing the application. 7. We have considered the submissions made at length by both sides and perused the records. 8. We find that the bone of contention in this case is regarding the credit availed to the benefit granted under Notification No. 1/06, dated 1-3-2006. The said notification grants an abatement of 67% of the value and the services provided by the applicant, with a condition, which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that for an amount of credit of Rs. 19.62 lakhs, no assessee would like to forgo the benefit of 67% of the abatement as granted by the Notification. We find Principal Bench at New Delhi in the case of Sachdeva Roadlines (P) Ltd., (supra) was considering an identical issue wherein the Cenvat credit of Rs. 1.10 lakhs were availed and demand was raised for approximately Rs. 1.39 crores, denying the benefit of abatement. It is also noted that the applicant has reversed the entire amount of credit of Rs. 19.62 lakhs. 11. We are of the considered opinion that the issue in this case may be covered by the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in the case of Hello Minerals Water (P) Ltd . (supra). An identical situation was also be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
