TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Appellate Tribunal Waives Duty Pre-Deposit and Penalty in Service Tax Case</h1> <h3>AMBUJA CEMENT LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, RAIPUR</h3> AMBUJA CEMENT LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, RAIPUR - 2009 (14) S.T.R. 726 (Tri. - Del.) Issues:1. Waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty amount.2. Demand of service tax on various services.3. Allowance of Cenvat credit on input services.4. Interpretation of eligibility for credit on input services.Analysis:The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, NEW DELHI, involved the issue of waiver of pre-deposit of duty amounting to Rs. 1,22,793/- and penalty of an equal amount. The case revolved around a demand for service tax on services such as Insurance service, Telephone Services, and Security Agency Service. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the Cenvat credit on input services except for the 'Security Agency Service.'The Advocate for the Appellant argued that the security service provided in the residential area adjacent to the factory, located in a remote area, should be considered eligible for credit. He relied on a previous decision of the Tribunal in the case of Manikgarh Cement. On the other hand, the DR for the Respondent reiterated the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) and relied on a different decision of the Tribunal in the case of H.E.G. Ltd. v. CCE, Raipur.Upon hearing both sides and examining the records, the Tribunal found that the Commissioner (Appeals) had allowed input services related to Insurance Service for the guest house residence of the President of the company. Citing the decision in the case of Manikgarh Cement, the Tribunal concluded that the residential colony of the factory, situated in a remote area, and input services for maintenance and repair were indeed eligible for credit. Therefore, the Tribunal determined that the applicants had established a prima facie case for the waiver of pre-deposit of tax and penalty. Consequently, the pre-deposit of tax and penalty was waived, and the stay application was allowed.The judgment highlights the importance of interpreting the eligibility criteria for credit on input services, considering the specific circumstances of the case and relevant legal precedents. The decision underscores the significance of thorough legal arguments and reliance on past judgments to support the case effectively before the Tribunal.
TaxTMI 