2014 (4) TMI 446

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, (in short, "the Tribunal") in ST/STAY/58665/2013, claiming following substantial questions of law:- i) Whether the Tribunal is correct in holding that no prima facie case is made out to safeguard the interest of the revenue under the provisions of section 35-F of Central Excise Act, 1944? ii) Whether the discretion exercised by the Tribunal for complete waiver of pre-deposit is judicious and in accordance with the judicial precedent and law evolved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India? iii) Whether the impugned order passed by the learned Tribunal is a justified and well reasoned order in accordance with law? 2. A few facts relevant for the decision of the controv....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ted the details of Cenvat credit availed by it during the period 2007-08 to 2011-12. According to the revenue, the input service credit of Rs. 25,82,82,437/- availed by it was inadmissible and recoverable from it under Rule 14 of the CENVAT Rules read with section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994. Accordingly, the assesseee was issued a show cause notice dated 10.10.2012, Annexure A.2 for recovery of inadmissible cenvat credit of Rs. 25,82,82,437/- under Section 73 of the Finance Act by invoking the extended period of limitation alongwith interest under Section 75 of the Act and proposing penal action under Sections 76, 77, 78 of the Act. The availment of cenvat credit of the said amount was disallowed by the adjudicating authority vide order da....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s covered by the decision of the Chennai Bench in BSNL vs. CCE Trichy. The decision was rendered in the context of CENVAT credit on capital goods. In another decision of the Bangalore bench in Manipal v. CCE, Bangalore the position is reiterated. 3. In the light of the aforesaid decisions, the petitioner has a prima facie case in its favour. We therefore grant waiver of pre-deposit in full and stay all further proceedings pursuant to the adjudication order, pending disposal of the appeal. The application is disposed of accordingly." 6. The Tribunal had recorded that there was a prima facie case in favour of the assessee in view of the decisions of the Chennai and Bangalore Tribunals in BSNL and Manipal Advertising Services Pvt. Limite....