9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (3) TMI 100X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bonafide – no plea of hardship – stay not granted – appellant is directed to pre-deposit entire dues X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tatement on the part of the appellant in the appeal memo, there is no other documentary proof available on record in that regard. Prima facie therefore it is apparent that the party had not produced any documentary proof in relation to alleged certificates before the Original Authority. There is a clear finding to that effect in the order passed by the Original Authority, which reads thus:- "In their defence reply party has stated that transporter in all cases have submitted certificates that they have neither availed of facilities under CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 nor under Notification No. 12/2003-S.T. but they did not submit the same either to the Audit party or with their defence reply or at the time of personal Hearing." 5. In spite of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... edit Rules, 2004 were not availed by the transporter. 7. Ld. Advocate for the appellant however draws our attention to the decisions of the Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Vadodara v. Narmada Chematur Pharmaceuticals Ltd. reported in 2005 (179) E.L.T. 276 (S.C.) and Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur v. Jamshedpur Beverages, reported in 2007 (214) E.L.T. 321 (S.C.) and submitted that the compulsion for payment of service tax is clearly unwarranted as the whole exercise is revenue neutral since Cenvat credit is clearly admissible to the appellant and also it can take the credit at any point of time. According to the appellant/applicant, the lower authorities as well as original authorities had w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er without considering the certificates. In other words, the conduct of the appellant clearly discloses lack of bona fide in relation to the proceedings before the lower authorities. A party who does not hesitate to make statements of facts contrary to the records deserves no indulgence. In such circumstances, the point of revenue neutrality cannot come to the aid of the appellant in seeking stay of the order requiring the appellant to pay the tax and penalty amount thereof. Indeed, even in the application for stay we do not find any case of any hardship in that regard having been made. Hence in our considered opinion there is no case for unconditional stay of the impugned order during the pendency of the appeal or to grant any exemption to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
