9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (2) TMI 694X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l No. 58434 of 2013 (SM) - Stay Order No. 59559/2013 - Dated:- 18-10-2013 - Shri. Rakesh Kumar, J. For the Appellant : Ms. Archana, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri Davinder Singh, Authorized Representative (Jt. CDR) ORDER Per. Rakesh Kumar :- The appellant are an authorised service station providing the taxable service of servicing of automobiles and also the business auxiliary service. During the period of dispute i.e. during period from 01/10/07 to 31/03/11, they were availing of Cenvat credit of service tax paid on various input services like maintenance of machinery, training of staff, maintenance of capital goods under AMC, insurance, courier service, telephone etc. out of which only certain services like repai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d of dispute in this case is prior to 01/4/11, that in view of this, the impugned order denying proportionate Cenvat credit is not correct, and that in this regard, she also relies upon judgment dated 06/9/13 of Honble Delhi High Court in the Appellants own case. She also pleaded that substantial portion of demand is time barred. She, therefore, pleaded that the appellant have strong prima facie case in their favour and, hence, the requirement of pre-deposit of Cenvat credit demand, interest and penalty may be waived for hearing of the appeal and recovery thereof may be stayed till the disposal of the appeal. 4. Shri Davinder Singh, the learned Jt. CDR, opposed the stay application by reiterating the findings of the Commissioner (Appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vice and also trading activity, which was not a taxable service during the period of dispute. In the impugned order, the denial of Cenvat credit is restricted only to the credit in respect of input services, in question, which were used for trading activity and, as such, the judgment of Hon ble Delhi High Court cited by the learned Counsel for the Appellant is not applicable to the facts of this case. As regards the plea of limitation, the same being a mixed question of facts and law can be examined only at the stage of final hearing. In view of this, the appellant have not been able to establish prima facie case in their favour. Hence they are directed to deposit an amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- (Rupees Two Lacs Fifty Thousand) within a period ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
