9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (9) TMI 626 - AT - Service TaxCredit on Tower and shelters as well as input services relating to tower and shelters - Held that - The amount in respect of towers and was required to be waived BHARATI TELE VENTURES LIMITED Versus CCE, PUNE-III (2010 (11) TMI 77 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT) the waiver of predeposit and stay of recovery was allowed. Demand related to insufficient information on input invoices/payment not made for services - there was factual dispute on denial of the credit - Held that - Some of the input services like loan for corporate, commission paid for purchase of land, consultancy for corporate, collection charges would apparently prima facie establish that services rendered were in relation to their business. Waiver of pre-deposit of CENVAT credit - Interest and Penalty 20 lakhs were ordered to be submitted as pre deposit stay granted partly.
Issues:
1. Waiver of predeposit of CENVAT credit amount 2. Denial of credit on towers and shelters 3. Insufficient information on input invoices/payment for services 4. Denial of credit on various input services Analysis: Issue 1: Waiver of predeposit of CENVAT credit amount The applicant sought waiver of predeposit of a substantial CENVAT credit amount along with interest and penalty. The Tribunal considered the matter and observed that a major credit amount was denied on towers, shelters, and related input services. The advocate referenced a previous stay order by the Tribunal in a similar case, highlighting the inconsistency in decisions. The Tribunal noted the directions of the Bombay High Court, which emphasized that the duty demand confirmed by CESTAT should not be enforced until further orders. Consequently, the Tribunal granted waiver of predeposit and stay of recovery of dues until the appeal's disposal. Issue 2: Denial of credit on towers and shelters Regarding the denial of credit amounting to Rs.20.30 crores on towers and shelters, the Tribunal considered the judgment of the Bombay High Court and decided to waive the said amount. The Tribunal relied on the High Court's order directing that duty demand confirmed by CESTAT should not be enforced until further orders, leading to the grant of waiver and stay of recovery for this specific amount. Issue 3: Insufficient information on input invoices/payment for services A demand of Rs.58.60 lakhs was linked to insufficient information on input invoices and non-payment for services. The Tribunal noted a factual dispute on the denial of credit in this regard, indicating the need for further examination during the appeal hearing. Issue 4: Denial of credit on various input services The denial of credit amounting to Rs.1.07 crores on input services such as collection of bills, IT services, market study, bank charges, and air travel was deliberated. The advocate argued that these services were related to the business and fell under the definition of "Input service credit." The Tribunal acknowledged that some of the input services appeared to be business-related, directing the applicant to deposit a specified amount within a set timeframe. Upon compliance, the balance dues from the impugned order would be waived, and recovery stayed until the appeal's resolution. In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment addressed the various issues raised by the applicant concerning the waiver of predeposit, denial of credit on specific categories, and insufficient information on input invoices. The decision reflected a meticulous consideration of legal precedents and factual disputes, ultimately ensuring a fair and reasoned outcome for the parties involved.
|
