9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (3) TMI 78X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... applicant Company at Mumbai, which is registered with the service tax authorities as Input Service Distributor (ISD). During the audit by the Central Excise officers in the applicants factory, it was noticed that they have used the common input service in respect of dutiable final products as well as trading goods. After detection of the officers, the applicants reversed the proportionate input service credit used in the trading goods. Two show cause notices were issued proposing to recover an amount of 10%/8%/6% on the clearance value of the trading goods of the entire company for the period 2006 to 2011. The adjudicating authority confirmed the recovery of an amount of Rs. 14,84,69,154/- and Rs. 2,93,30047/- along with interest and pen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d is barred by limitation. 3. On the other hand, the Ld. AR on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the adjudicating authority. He particularly drew the attention of the Bench to para 5.8 of the adjudication order. He submits that the explanation inserted under the amended notification dated 01.04.2011 has retrospective effect. He submits that the applicants had not exercised the option under Rule 6(3) of the CCR and therefore they are liable to pay duty of 10%/8%/6% on the clearance of the trading goods. He submits that the Tribunal consistently viewed that the trading goods would be treated as exempted goods in various decisions as under:- 1. Indian Furniture Products Ltd. Vs. CCE, Chennai 2011 (22) STR 504 (Tri-Chen.) 2. L ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 01.04.2011. Prima facie, we find in the present case, the applicants have reversed the proportionate input service credit and therefore, it is a fit case for waiver of predeposit of the entire amount along with interest and penalty. In view of the above, we waive pre-deposit of the entire amount along with interest and penalty and stayed its recovery till the disposal of the appeal. However, considering the amount involved and the issue was already decided by the Tribunal in the case of Mercedes Benz India Pvt. Ltd (supra), as contended by the Ld. Sr. Advocate, we find that it is appropriate that the appeal should be taken on out of turn. The appeal is fixed for hearing on 02.02.2015. The stay application is allowed. (Order pronounced and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
