9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (3) TMI 470X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eous Order No. 25426 dated 19.03.2013, this Tribunal had considered the stay application filed by the appellants and had directed them to deposit an amount of Rs. 30 lakhs and report compliance within 10 weeks. Subsequently the appellants filed a miscellaneous application for modification of Stay Order which came to be rejected by this Tribunal vide Miscellaneous Order No. 26202/2013 dated 17.06.2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0. 3. The learned counsel submitted that the very same issue had come up before the Tribunal in appeal in the case of Josts Engineering Co. Ltd. E/1511 & 1512/2011-Mum. In that case, the Tribunal took the view that the reversal of credit of service tax taken by the appellant is sufficient and there is no need for payment of 5%/10% in terms of Rule 6(3) of CENVAT Credit Rules 2004. He submits that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pted products taken by them in respect of input services. Taking this into consideration and taking the fact that appellant had maintained separate accounts in respect of inputs, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the reversal of entire credit would be sufficient and it amounts to non-availment of credit and when credit is not availed in respect of input services at all, the provisions of Ru ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
