9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (12) TMI 227X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld fall within the definition of Input service, capital goods or input service for the purpose of availing cenvat credit - impugned order is not sustainable as nexus with manufacture is established and thus this is a fit case for grant of waiver of duty demand, interest and penalty pending appeal - after waiving the conditions ofi pre-deposit, impugned order is set aside and remand the matter back to the Commissioner concerned for de novo adjudication in the light of the Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 after giving opportunity of being heard to the party as the above plea has been raised for the first time before the Tribunal in the interest of justice - Appeal is decided accordingly. - Excise Stay Application No.2125 of 2012 in Appeal No.1608 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as filed stay application seeking waiver of condition of duty demand, interest and penalty. 4. Shri R.K. Hasija, ld. Advocate for the appellant has contended that the Commissioner has wrongly denied cenvat cenvat to the appellant ignoring the fact that research and development centre run by the appellant within factory premises was basically meant for ensuring quality of the product and also to ensure that the prototype of their product may not fail the mandatory test by the prescribed authority for obtaining of certificate required under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. In support of this contention, ld. counsel for the appellant has drawn our attention to Rule 126 of the Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 which reads as under:- 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le for sale. Therefore, any charge incurred in research and development unit would fall within the definition of Input service, capital goods or input service for the purpose of availing cenvat credit. Thus he has contended that impugned order is not sustainable and thus this is a fit case for grant of waiver of duty demand, interest and penalty pending appeal. 5. Shri Sanjay Jain, ld. A.R. for Revenue has contended that the above referred plea pertaining to Rule 126 of Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 was not taken by the appellant during adjudication proceeding and this plea has been raised for the first time before the Tribunal. Thus, ld. A.R. has pleaded that it would be in the interest of justice to remand the case back to the Commissioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
