https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=243441 At the stay stage in a dispute over denial of abatement under Notification No. 1/2006-ST, the tribunal found that the appellant's claim that Cenvat credit was taken only for some sites, while abatement was claimed only for sites without such credit, required detailed examination. The notification was viewed prima facie as applicable to the service provider as such rather than on a contract-wise basis, making the dispute debatable on the available record. Complete waiver of pre-deposit was therefore not justified, and partial pre-deposit was directed with recovery of the balance stayed on compliance. en-us Tue, 23 Apr 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 01 Feb 2014 11:12:39 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=243441 At the stay stage in a dispute over denial of abatement under Notification No. 1/2006-ST, the tribunal found that the appellant's claim that Cenvat credit was taken only for some sites, while abatement was claimed only for sites without such credit, required detailed examination. The notification was viewed prima facie as applicable to the service provider as such rather than on a contract-wise basis, making the dispute debatable on the available record. Complete waiver of pre-deposit was therefore not justified, and partial pre-deposit was directed with recovery of the balance stayed on compliance. Case-Laws Service Tax Tue, 23 Apr 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=243441