2009 (6) TMI 103 - AT - Service Tax

Tribunal waives pre-deposit for warranty services, stresses on speaking order for justice

The Tribunal granted the Appellant's request for waiver of pre-deposit for warranty services, emphasizing the necessity of a speaking order for justice. ... Credit on inputs used for providing free service during warranty contended as admissible without restriction under Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - Nothing is noticeable from the impugned order as to the extent of examination of the value of the taxable services and non-taxable services. Similarly impugned order does not depict the value of the inputs used in these categories of services. In absence of a speaking order, we are able to appreciate that waiving pre-deposit shall meet end of justice. Accordingly, we waive pre-deposit Issues:1. Whether the Appellant is entitled to waiver of pre-deposit for services provided during the warranty period.2. Whether the Appellant maintained separate books of account for monitoring activities.3. Extent of examination of taxable and non-taxable services and inputs used.Analysis:Issue 1:The Appellant contended that for services provided during the warranty period, where no consideration is received, there is a possibility of input involvement. The Appellant argued that since warranty services are tax-free, the input used to discharge obligations should enjoy Cenvat credit without recovery under Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The Tribunal agreed with the Appellant's submission and waived the pre-deposit during the appeal, emphasizing the need for a speaking order to meet the ends of justice.Issue 2:The Departmental Representative highlighted that the Appellant failed to maintain separate books of account to monitor all activities, leading to difficulties in granting benefits under Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The Authority found it impractical to assess the services without proper records. The Appellant disputed this claim, stating that not all invoices were demanded for examination, making the allegation unsustainable. However, the Tribunal did not delve further into this issue due to the lack of a detailed examination in the order.Issue 3:Upon hearing both sides and reviewing the record, the Tribunal observed a lack of clarity regarding the extent of examination of the value of taxable and non-taxable services, as well as the value of inputs used in these services. The order did not provide sufficient details on these aspects, making it challenging to assess the Appellant's case thoroughly. Despite this, the Tribunal decided to waive the pre-deposit during the appeal period to serve the interests of justice, emphasizing the importance of a comprehensive and transparent decision-making process.In conclusion, the judgment addressed the Appellant's entitlement to waiver of pre-deposit for warranty services, the issue of maintaining separate books of account, and the need for a detailed examination of services and inputs. The Tribunal stressed the importance of a clear and comprehensive order to ensure justice and fairness in decision-making processes.