9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (11) TMI 1357X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s to that effect. This position also is accepted by CBEC also in its circular. So its subsequent utilisation cannot be faulted - Stay granted. - ST/41464, 41465/2013 - MISC ORDER No.42509-42510/2013 - Dated:- 24-10-2013 - Shri Pradip Kumar Das and Shri Mathew John, JJ. For the Appellant : Shri R.Srinivasan, Consultant For the Respondent : Ms. Indira Sisupal, AC (AR) JUDGEMENT Per Mathew John 1. The applicant runs a retail outlet and their main line of business is selling goods in retail. They also provide service of selling space for advertisement. On such services, they have been paying service tax and taking Cenvat Credit on input services common to trading as well as taxable output service. Out of such cenvat credi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o a service at all. Further Revenue was of the view credit should have been taken only based on the ratio of value of taxable services provided to value of goods traded. Revenue was also of the view that utilization of credit lying unutilized as on 01-04-2008 was not proper. In this regard, two show cause notices dated 13-09-2011 and 20-04-2012 were issued for the periods April 06 to Sept 10 and Oct 10 to March 11. The Show cause notices involved certain other minor issues like taking of credit without payment of value of service to the service provider, adjustment of excess tax paid in one period in the subsequent period etc. Out of the total demand confirmed for Rs. 5,93,06,974/-, as per para 6.0 of the impugned order Rs. 5,84,69,919/- ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unt as on 01-04-08 could be utilized, CBEC has clarified vide Circular F. No. 137/72/2008-Cx-4 dated 21-11-2008 that the credit that was accumulated will not get lapsed. Therefore, it his submission that accumulation of credit and its utilization was in accordance with the legal provisions as clarified by CBEC therefore his appeal may be admitted without any pre-deposit. He also pleaded financial hardship. 7. Opposing the prayer, Ld. AR for Revenue reiterates the findings in the adjudication order. She also submits that credit was taken for the services rendered in March 2010 for which payment was made in April 2010 which is not legally correct. As a rejoinder, the learned advocate submits that payment to the service providers were made i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
