2009 (8) TMI 412 - AT - Service Tax

Cenvat Credit-Input services- The confirmation of the demand has arisen on the ground that the applicant had availed CENVAT Credit on the Service Tax paid on catering services Rent-a-cab services car maintenance services etc. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand along with interest imposed penalties. On an appeal ld. Commissioner (Appeals) directed the appellant to deposit 50 per cent of the confirmed amount as pre-deposit by the lower authorities for hearing and disposing appeal. In the light of the decision of CCE v. GTC Industries Ltd 2008 -TMI - 31592 - CESTAT MUMBAI held that- Commissioner (Appeals) has not given any findings on the merit of the case. Thus the impugned order is set-aside and remand back the matter.

Summary

Issues:
Stay petition against pre-deposit of demand, interest, and penalty due to availing CENVAT Credit on specific services. Non-compliance with pre-deposit leading to appeal rejection. Interpretation of applicability of pre-deposit requirement based on precedent cases.

The judgment deals with a stay petition challenging the pre-deposit of demand, interest, and penalty amounting to Rs. 4,72,151 due to availing CENVAT Credit on services like catering, Rent-a-cab, and car maintenance. The lower authorities deemed the credit inadmissible, leading to confirmation of demand, interest, and penalties. The appellant failed to comply with the pre-deposit order, resulting in the appeal rejection by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) for non-compliance.

The appellant argued that the issue aligns with the decisions of the Larger Bench in CCE v. GTC Industries Ltd. and the same Bench in Stanzen Toyotetsu India (P.) Ltd. The Departmental Representative contended that the appellant should have first complied with the pre-deposit order before challenging the issue before lower authorities.

Upon review, the Tribunal found the issue favoring the appellant based on the Larger Bench decision in GTC Industries Ltd.'s case. As the issue appeared covered, the Tribunal ruled that the appellant need not deposit any amount as a pre-condition for appeal hearing. Moreover, the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) had not provided any findings on the case's merits, preventing a detailed assessment. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, remanding the matter to the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) for a reconsideration without requiring any pre-deposit from the appellant, emphasizing a decision based on merit. The stay petition and appeal were thus disposed of accordingly.