TMI Blog2008 (9) TMI 262X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellants – stay granted - ST/189/2008 - 924/2008 - Dated:- 9-9-2008 - Dr. S.L. Peeran, Member (J) and Shri T.K. Jayaraman, Member (T) S/Shri K.S. Ravi Shankar and K.S. Naveen Kumar, Advocates, for the Appellant. Smt. Joy Kumari Chander, JCDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : T.K. Jayaraman, Member (T) (Oral)].- In terms of the impugned order, the appellants are required to pre-deposit the following amounts for the periods mentioned therein:- (1) Rs. 99,95,215/- being the Cenvat credit availed wrongly during the period from April, 2005 to March 2006 under the proviso to Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Rule 14 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. (2) Rs. 34,24,428/- being the irregular utilization of C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amendment in the year 2006. He made a point that as long as there was a liability on the part of the appellant to pay Service Tax on GTA services as a receiver of service, there cannot be any bar for utilizing the input service credit availed on the other services. He urged that the GTA Service was to be deemed as their output service. He relied on a large number of case-laws whose citations are given below :- (i) R.R.D. Tex Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Salem - 2007 (8) S.T.R 186 (Tri.-Chennai) Cenvat credit of service tax-Output service-Appellants only receiving taxable services and not providing any, but they were discharging Service tax liability in respect of Goods Transport Agency's Service received for inward and outward movement of goods ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... final products, the service for which he is liable to pay service tax shall be deemed to be the output service." 6. In view of the decisions of the Tribunal in a large number of cases, prima facie, the appellants have a very strong case on merits. Further, the Advocate, argued at length to show that the longer period should not have been invoked, as there was no intention to evade service Tax. In our view, there is prima facie a strong case. 7. The learned JCDR reiterated the departmental view and requested the bench to put the appellants on terms. She has relied on the Board's Circular No. F. 345/4/2005-TRU, dated 3-10-2005. 8. We also notice that the explanation to the "output service" has been omitted vide Notification No. 8/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
