9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (4) TMI 92 - AT - Central ExciseWaiver of pre deposit - CENVAT Credit - Held that - all the services in respect which service tax credit was taken were related to business of manufacture and therefore credit was taken correctly. The detailed consideration of each and every service can be done only at the stage of final hearing. However, prima facie I find that the service tax credit of Rs. 3,36,946/- claimed towards insurance premium for parents of employees and service tax credit taken of Rs. 36,975/-towards training of employees (in connection with their marriage) and services of clearance of baggage of Directors/family prima facie does not have anything to do with the business of manufacture. In my opinion, at least in respect of these two services, the appellant may be required to deposit the amount - stay granted partly.
Issues:
Proceedings initiated for wrongful CENVAT credit exceeding Rs. 1.3 crores, confirmation of demand, imposition of penalty, waiver of predeposit, stay against recovery. Analysis: The judgment pertains to proceedings initiated against the appellant for allegedly taking CENVAT credit of over Rs. 1.3 crores improperly. The Commissioner confirmed the demand for CENVAT credit amounting to Rs. 6,13,356/- along with interest and imposed a penalty of Rs. 6,12,539/-. The appellant sought waiver of predeposit and stay against the recovery of the said amount. Upon hearing both sides, the court noted that no financial difficulty was pleaded by the appellant. The appellant's counsel argued that the services for which service tax credit was availed were related to the business of manufacture, justifying the credit taken. However, the court found that certain service tax credits, such as those claimed for insurance premium for employees' parents and training of employees related to marriage, were not connected to the business of manufacture. Therefore, the court directed the appellant to deposit Rs. 4,00,000/- within six weeks and report compliance by a specified date. The court held that subject to the appellant's compliance with the deposit requirement, the predeposit of the remaining dues would be waived, and a stay against recovery was granted during the pendency of the appeal. The judgment was pronounced and dictated in open court by Mr. B.S.V. MURTHY, J. with representation from Mr. N. Anand for the Appellant and Mr. S. Teli for the Respondent.
|
