2014 (2) TMI 291 - AT - Service Tax

Appellant must deposit Rs.50,00,000 within specified period to stay recovery during appeal.

The Tribunal directed the appellant to make a deposit of Rs.50,00,000/- within a specified period, with the understanding that further examination of the ... Waiver of predeposit - General Insurance Service - Denial of CENVAT CRedit - Credit was denied on the ground that the applicant availed credit on the basis of invoices issued by Authorized Service Stations were not in the name of the applicant but were in the name of vehicle owners - Held that:- Tribunal has already granted unconditional stay in M/s CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, LTU, CHENNAI [2013 (2) TMI 132 - CESTAT CHENNAI] - However assessee is directed to make to pre deposit - Conditional stay granted. Issues: Application for waiver of predeposit of Rs.10,77,21,171/- along with interest and penalty in a case involving denial of credit for availing services of General Insurance Service based on invoices issued by Authorized Service Stations not in the name of the applicant but in the name of vehicle owners.Analysis:1. The applicant filed an application seeking waiver of predeposit of a substantial amount along with interest and penalty due to the denial of credit for availing services of General Insurance Service. The issue arose as the invoices for the services were issued by Authorized Service Stations in the name of vehicle owners, not in the name of the applicant.2. The advocate for the appellant referred to previous Tribunal decisions on similar issues, such as Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs CCE LTU, Chennai, Royal Sundaram Alliance Co. Ltd. Vs CCE & ST LTU, Chennai, and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs CCE ST LTU Chennai, where stays were granted. The advocate argued for similar treatment in the present case.3. The respondent's representative highlighted a previous case involving Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs CCE & ST LTU, Chennai, where a predeposit of Rs.50 lakhs was directed on the same issue. The respondent emphasized the similarities between the previous case and the present one, pointing out the details in the Show Cause Notice.4. After considering arguments from both sides, the Tribunal noted that a stay had already been granted on the identical issue in the appellant's own case. However, allegations in the Show Cause Notice indicated discrepancies in the invoices issued by Authorized Service Stations. The Tribunal directed the appellant to make a deposit of Rs.50,00,000/- within a specified period, with the understanding that further examination of the allegations would take place during the appeal hearing. Upon compliance with the deposit, the balance credit amount, along with interest and penalty, would be waived, and recovery stayed during the appeal process.5. The Tribunal's decision was based on the need to address the factual disputes raised in the Show Cause Notice and ensure proper examination of the allegations during the appeal hearing. The directive for the deposit was seen as a measure to prevent potential fraudulent activities and to facilitate a fair resolution of the case. The Tribunal's order aimed to balance the interests of both parties while ensuring compliance with legal requirements and maintaining the integrity of the appeal process.