9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2008 (5) TMI 64 - AT - Service TaxIssue pertains to availment of credit on outward transportation with regard to the service tax credit - However both the Benches at Ahmedabad and Chennai have given waiver on the same issue - This Bench has granted waiver in all similar matters hence stay applications are allowed granting waiver of pre-deposit and staying its recovery
Issues: Stay applications regarding availment of credit on outward transportation for service tax credit, waiver of pre-deposit, protection of revenue interest.
Analysis: 1. Availment of credit on outward transportation: The issue in the present case involved the availment of credit on outward transportation concerning service tax credit. The matter was referred to a Larger Bench due to conflicting decisions in the cases of India Cements Ltd., Hyundai Motors (India) Ltd., and Gujarat Sidhee Cement Ltd. The appellant sought a waiver of pre-deposit based on similar waivers granted in other cases. The learned counsel highlighted recent amendments in the law affecting the benefit availability but argued for consistency with previous waiver decisions. 2. Waiver of pre-deposit: The Tribunal considered the submissions and noted its prior referral of a similar matter to a Larger Bench, indicating a prima facie finding in favor of the assessee. Referring to waivers granted by other Benches and its own precedent, the Tribunal granted the stay applications, allowing a waiver of pre-deposit and staying the recovery of the duty amounts. The Tribunal emphasized consistency with past decisions and scheduled the matter for a hearing alongside similar cases. 3. Protection of revenue interest: The learned DR raised concerns about the substantial duty amounts involved and emphasized the need to protect revenue interest. Despite this, the Tribunal, based on the established precedents and the pending Larger Bench reference, decided to grant the waiver of pre-deposit and stay recovery until the appeal's disposal, even beyond the usual 180-day period. This decision aimed to maintain consistency with previous rulings and ensure a fair hearing process for the appellant.
|
