Cenvat credit on GTA transport to depots and dealers supported unconditional stay where binding precedent and limitation favoured the assessee.

Cenvat credit on service tax paid for GTA transport of goods to depots, dealers and consignment agents was treated as prima facie allowable, because the dispute was covered by the Larger Bench ruling in ABB Ltd. and the related circular recognising depots and consignment-agent premises as places of removal. On that basis, the demand did not justify pre-deposit, and unconditional stay was granted on the credit issue. The limitation objection also supported interim relief, since a similar demand against another unit had already been set aside and a major part of the demand was stated to be time-barred.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the appellant had made out a prima facie case for waiver of pre-deposit in respect of the demand based on denial of Cenvat credit of service tax paid on GTA services used for transport of goods to depots, dealers and consignment agents; (ii) whether the demand also warranted stay consideration on the ground of limitation.

Issue (i): whether the appellant had made out a prima facie case for waiver of pre-deposit in respect of the demand based on denial of Cenvat credit of service tax paid on GTA services used for transport of goods to depots, dealers and consignment agents.

Analysis: The dispute was found to be covered by the Larger Bench decision in ABB Ltd., as affirmed by the Karnataka High Court. The Board's circular clarifying that the place of removal includes depots, consignment agents' premises or other places from where goods are sold after clearance from the factory was also relied upon. On the facts noted, the basis for denial of credit was found to be contrary to the Revenue's own case.

Conclusion: The appellant was held entitled to waiver of pre-deposit and unconditional stay on this issue.

Issue (ii): whether the demand also warranted stay consideration on the ground of limitation.

Analysis: It was noticed that a similar demand against another unit of the same assessee had already been set aside, and the major part of the demand was also stated to be barred by limitation. These aspects supported the grant of interim relief.

Conclusion: The limitation aspect also weighed in favour of granting unconditional stay.

Final Conclusion: Interim relief was granted in full, and the appellant was relieved from the condition of pre-deposit.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the credit issue is prima facie covered by binding precedent and the relevant circular, and the demand is additionally supported by a limitation objection, unconditional stay may be granted in waiver proceedings.

---