TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (11) TMI 73
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d., Borivali, are manufacturers of goods falling under Chapter 72 & 73 of the schedule to the Central Exicse Tariff Act. They are also availing Cenvat Credit on inputs, capital goods and input services under the provisions of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Four show-cause notices dated 13/03/2009, 16/07/2009, 05/11/2009 and 22/12/2009 were issued to the appellants wherein it was alleged that the appellant had availed Cenvat credit on the basis of invoices issued from their various depots/offices as input service distributors as per the provisions of Rule 3 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 for the services received by the depots in respect of various services namely, loading/unloading, telephone, outward transport, handling charges, clearing....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....med. The adjudicating authority also demanded interest under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 14 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and also imposed a penalty of Rs.2,000/- under Rule 15(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The appellant preferred an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who vide the impugned order rejected the appeal. Hence the appellants are before us. 3. The Ld. Advocate for the appellant submits that there is no bar under the Service Tax Rules in distributing credit to various units of the appellant even if the services might have been availed in another unit of the appellant and not in the unit where the credit is being taken. He relies on the judgment of this Tribunal in Order No. 399 t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....) of clause (105) of the Finance Act provided by the provider of taxable service to a customer/client. Subscriber, policy holder or any other person and the case may be and the expression 'provided' shall be construed accordingly. From these definitions it is clear that during the impugned period the services of GTA was excluded from the scope of output service under Rule 2(p) of Cenvat Credit Rules. Further, it was excluded from the definition of input service under Rule 2(1)(ii) as only the services used in the clearance of final products up to the place of removal could be considered as an input service. In the instant case, it is clear that the service has been rendered beyond the place of removal for transportation of goods from the de....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... February 2012. On such compliance, the balance of dues adjudged shall stand waived and recovery thereof stayed during the pendency of the appeals. (Pronounced in Court on ................................) Per: Ashok Jindal: 7. I have gone through the order and findings recorded by the learned brother Shri P. R. Chandrasekharan, Member (T), but I do not fully agree with him. I have a difference of opinion with learned Member (T) on the issue of pre-deposit on the following grounds:- (a) As contended by the appellant that in their won case vide Order No. S/795-799/11/EB/C-II dated 24.10.2011 by observing as in para 3 & 4 granted unconditional waiver of pre-deposit holding that the appellants are having strong prima facie case. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ced before the Hon'ble Vice-President, HOD for referring the matter to third Member to decide the following issue:- (a) Whether the appellants are required to make a pre-deposit as directed by the Member (Technical) Or (b) Whether the appellants are not required to make any pre-deposit as held by the Member (Judicial), In continuation of Misc. Order No. M/126/12/EB/C-II dt 8.12.11/12.01.12 Order No: S/972-973/12/EB/C-II dt 02.05.12 Application No. E/S/2215 & 2216/10 Appeal E/2026 & 2027/10 TATA STEEL LTD Vs COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MUMBAI Appellant Rep by: Mr Bharat Raichandani, Adv. Respondent Rep by: Mr A K Prabhakar, Superintendent (AR) Date of Decision: 2.5.2012 Per: S S Kang: 1. As ther....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at the Tribunal in the earlier decisions relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Ecof Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs CCE reported in whereby the Tribunal had only taken into consideration the provisions of the Cenvat Credit Rules. The Tribunal has not taken into consideration the definition of input services as provided under Rule 2(1)of the Cenvat Credit Rules. The contention of the Revenue is that the applicants are not distributing service tax credit but are transferring the same which is not permissible under the Cenvat Credit Rules. Hence it is not a case for total waiver of the dues. 5. I find that the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd (supra) held that "The Tribunal as....