2014 (3) TMI 33 - AT - Service Tax

Service tax credit - Windmills maintained outside the factory - Held that - Since the Tribunal has already granted stay in identical matters pre-deposit of balance dues is waived for admission of appeal in this case. Also its collection stayed during pendency of the appeal - Following decision of Hinduja Foundries Ltd. Vs CCE Chennai 2009 (9) TMI 543 - CESTAT, CHENNAI - Stay granted.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Delay in filing the first appeal.
2. Stay petition regarding service tax credit for windmills maintained outside the factory.
3. Delay in filing the second appeal.
4. Pre-deposit of balance dues and its collection during the pendency of the appeal.

Detailed Analysis:
1. Delay in filing the first appeal:
The appellant filed an appeal with a delay of 56 days, attributing the delay to the illness of their consultant who was handling the case. The appellant submitted a medical certificate in support of this claim. The Revenue opposed the condonation of delay, citing precedents where delays of similar or larger periods were not entertained by the Tribunal. However, the Tribunal distinguished those cases by noting that in those instances, the delays were due to the illness of employees of the appellant companies, whereas in the present case, the delay was due to the consultant handling the appeal falling sick. Considering the circumstances, the Tribunal decided to condone the delay of 56 days in filing the appeal.

2. Stay petition regarding service tax credit for windmills maintained outside the factory:
The appellant sought a stay on the issue of service tax credit related to windmills maintained outside the factory, pointing out that the Tribunal had granted stays in similar cases. The appellant referred to a specific decision of the Tribunal in support of their request. The Tribunal, noting the precedent and the similarity of the issue, decided to waive the pre-deposit of balance dues and stayed the collection during the pendency of the appeal.

3. Delay in filing the second appeal:
Similar to the first appeal, the second appeal also faced a delay in filing. The reasons for the delay were the same as in the first appeal. The Tribunal, considering the circumstances, decided to condone the delay in this case as well.

4. Pre-deposit of balance dues and its collection during the pendency of the appeal:
The appellant informed the Tribunal that the entire tax amount had been paid as recorded in the impugned order. The appellant highlighted the inconvenience in the order's organization but confirmed the payment of the tax amount. Consequently, the Tribunal waived the pre-deposit of balance dues and stayed the collection during the appeal's pendency.

In summary, the Tribunal addressed the issues of delay in filing appeals, granting stay on service tax credit, and managing pre-deposit of balance dues diligently, considering the specific circumstances and legal precedents cited by the parties involved.