2014 (1) TMI 1421 - AT - Service Tax

Stay application - Reversal of CENVAT Credit - Held that - Assessee have been maintaining separate accounts for input services attributable to taxable services and exempted services and for the common input services, and that they have reversed the credit amount attributable to exempted services and such reversal should be sufficient for admission of appeal stay has been granted in the earlier case. Hence we waive the requirement of pre-deposit of dues arising from the impugned order for admission of appeal and there shall be stay of collection of dues arising from the impugned order during pendency of appeal - Following decision in assessee s own previous case 2014 (1) TMI 622 - CESTAT CHENNAI - Stay granted.

Summary

Issues:
Delay in filing appeal, CENVAT credit denial based on Rule 6(3A) application.

Analysis:
1. Delay in filing appeal: The judgment addresses a delay of four days in filing the appeal. After hearing both parties, the tribunal decided to condone the delay and allowed the COD application. This issue was resolved promptly at the beginning of the judgment.

2. CENVAT credit denial based on Rule 6(3A) application: The main issue in the judgment revolves around the denial of CENVAT credit amounting to Rs. 75,32,568/- for a specific period. The appellant, engaged in various services, followed Rule 6(3A) for certain input services common to both taxable and exempted services. However, the Revenue objected to this method, citing reasons such as delay in opting for Rule 6(3A) and the incorrect application of the rule. The appellant argued that they had already opted for Rule 6(3A) for the previous year and that the rule applies only to common input services, not those entirely related to taxable services. The tribunal agreed with the appellant's interpretation, stating that Rule 6 is meant for common input services and not for those solely linked to taxable services. Additionally, the tribunal noted that the denial of credit solely based on delay in exercising the option was not reasonable, especially considering the turnover ratio of taxable to exempted services. The tribunal found no need for further pre-deposit for the appeal and ordered a stay on the collection of dues during the appeal's pendency.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed the issues of delay in filing the appeal and the denial of CENVAT credit based on the application of Rule 6(3A). The tribunal's decision to condone the delay and allow the appeal, along with the detailed analysis of Rule 6(3A) application, provided clarity on the matter.