9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 667X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") in Stay Order No. SO/ST/52029/2015-CU(DB), claiming the following substantial questions of law:- (i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. Tribunal is justified in directing the appellant to make a pre-deposit of Rs. 64,82,994/- on the basis of amendment in law, the compliance of which the appellant had already made? (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. Tribunal was justified in directing the appellant to make a pre-deposit of Rs. 64,82.994/- on the basis of an amendment in the definition of exempted services ignoring the corresponding amendment made in the definition of value under Rule 6(3D) Explanation I of CENVAT Credit Rule ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant. However, the Adjudicating Authority disagreed with the appellant holding that services provided during warranty period were exempted services as no tax was payable on the same and, therefore, levied tax amounting to Rs. 1,46,01,332/- for the period from 1.2.2009 to 30.9.2010. The appellant filed an appeal before the Tribunal, who vide order dated 8.4.2013 (Annexure A-4) granted stay of pre-deposit. Since, the appellant had opted for second option in terms of Rule 6(3A)(a) of the Rules, the necessary declaration was made giving necessary details dated 20.7.2011 (Annexure A-5). A show cause notice dated 11.10.2012 (Annexure A-6) was issued to the appellant for the period from January, 2009 to September, 2010 that providing of free servic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l while passing the impugned order was got carried away by the fact that with effect from 1.4.2011, the definition of exempted services as per Rule 2 (e) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 has been amended and, therefore, the case of the appellant would not fall under the same category as it did for the period prior to April, 2011. It was urged that the Tribunal had fallen into an error as it had failed to appreciate that the appellant had already complied with the amended law w.e.f. 1.4.2011 as it had reversed the input tax credit in terms of Rule 6(3A) for which necessary intimation had also been given to the authorities in terms of Rule 6(3A)(g). It was also argued that it was never the case of the Department that the liability is being fasten ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
