9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (1) TMI 571 - AT - Central ExcisePre-deposits waived on numerous services Held that - Revenue contended that the subject matter of the decided appeal and the other pending appeal is a part of the subject matter of the present appeal - Whether this submission is correct will be examined at final hearing stage - Prima facie the assessee is able to prove a case in their favour - the stay application filed by the appellant gets rejected Decided against Revenue.
Issues:
Stay of operation of appellate Commissioner's order denying CENVAT credit to the respondent for various services. Analysis: The judgment pertains to an application filed by the department seeking a stay on the appellate Commissioner's order denying CENVAT credit amounting to Rs. 14,14,680/- to the respondent for the period from April 2006 to September 2010. It is noted that a part of the denied credit has been reversed, specifically related to services concerning a residential colony, VIP bungalow, and certain outlying villages. An appeal filed by the department against the grant of CENVAT credit for a specific period was previously dismissed by the Tribunal. Additionally, there is another pending appeal filed by the respondent against the denial of CENVAT credit for a different period. The consultant for the respondent argues that the subject matter of the decided appeal and the pending appeal is related to the current appeal, which will be examined further during the final hearing. After considering both sides, the Tribunal finds that a prima facie case favors the respondent, leading to the rejection of the appellant's stay application. However, it is clarified that this decision does not allow the respondent to recredit the reversed amount. In conclusion, the judgment addresses the issue of granting a stay on the denial of CENVAT credit to the respondent for specific services during a defined period. The Tribunal's decision is based on a preliminary assessment of the case, indicating a leaning towards the respondent's position. The judgment highlights the importance of considering the interconnectedness of related appeals and emphasizes that the current order does not permit the respondent to recredit the reversed amount.
|
