2015 (12) TMI 276

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... RDER Per: R K Singh: Stay application along with appeal has been filed against order-in-original dated 28.5.2013 confirming demand of Rs. 1,64,00,749/- (along with interest and penalty) for the period 2010-2011 under Rule 6(3)(i) / Rule 14 of Cenvat Credit Rules and Section 73(1) of the Finance Act 1994 on the ground that the appellant had not paid 6%/8% of the value of the exempted service whil .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... mpugned demand @ 6% / 8% of the value thereof is unsustainable. 3. The ld. DR, on the other hand contended that in the wake of Bombay High Court judgement in the case of CCE Vs. Nicholas Piramal (India) Ltd. - 2009 (244) ELT 321 (Bom.), the issue is settled and the appellant has to pay 6% / 8% of the value of exempted service as it had not maintained separate accounts. 4. We have considered the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... axable services would prima facie fail in the absence of valuation provisions (refer the Supreme Court judgement in the case of CIT, Bangalore Vs. B.C. Srinivasa Setty [1981 (2) SCC 460]. 5. In these circumstances, we are of the view that pre-deposit of the amount of Cenvat credit taken towards so-called "non-taxable output service" along with proportionate interest would meet the requirement of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X