https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=239689 A partial pre-deposit dispute arose over service tax demands relating to CENVAT credit taken on invoices issued in the name of the head office and valuation of reimbursement expenditure. The head office invoices did not support a strong prima facie case because the head office was not registered as an Input Service Distributor under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, so deposit was required on that component. By contrast, the reimbursement-expenditure demand was based on Rule 5(1) of the Service Tax Valuation Rules, 2006, which had been struck down as ultra vires Sections 66 and 67 of the Finance Act, 1994; that component justified full waiver of pre-deposit. en-us Wed, 12 Jun 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 19 Nov 2013 12:30:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=239689 A partial pre-deposit dispute arose over service tax demands relating to CENVAT credit taken on invoices issued in the name of the head office and valuation of reimbursement expenditure. The head office invoices did not support a strong prima facie case because the head office was not registered as an Input Service Distributor under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, so deposit was required on that component. By contrast, the reimbursement-expenditure demand was based on Rule 5(1) of the Service Tax Valuation Rules, 2006, which had been struck down as ultra vires Sections 66 and 67 of the Finance Act, 1994; that component justified full waiver of pre-deposit. Case-Laws Service Tax Wed, 12 Jun 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=239689