TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (6) TMI 581
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tral Excise Tariff. The period of dispute in this case is from September, 2011 to February, 2012. The appellant company was availing CENVAT Credit of Central Excise duty paid on inputs and capital goods and service tax paid on input services as per the provisions of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The appellant company is a subsidiary company of M/s. Faurecia Sieges d' Automobile (FSA), France. During period from March, 2011 to February, 2012, FSA, France issued 11 invoices to the appellant company regarding certain business support services provided to the appellant company against which the appellant company made the payment and in respect of these services received, the appellant company paid service tax as service recipient in terms ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y application. 3. Heard both the sides in respect of the stay application. 4. Shri Alok Yadav, Advocate, ld. Counsel for the appellant, pleaded that the appellant company is a subsidiary company of FSA, France manufacturing components of automotive seats; that initially the unit has been set up in Bangalore in 1997 which was functional till April, 2007; that thereafter a new unit was set up in Manesar, Gurgaon; that in terms of the agreement of the appellant company with its parent company FSA, France, the parent company had provided certain business support services during March, 2011 to February, 2012 period, and payment for these services had been made by the appellant ; that these services had been received in respect of the Gurgoan U....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nterest and penalty may be waived for hearing of the appeal and the recovery thereof stayed. 5. Shri Pramod Kumar, ld. JCDR opposed the stay application by reiterating the findings of the Commissioner in the impugned order. He, pointing out to para 23 of the impugned order, pleaded hat the appellant company has not been able to establish that they have used the input service, in question, for manufacture of the final product at their Gurgaon Unit. He therefore, pleaded that this is not the case for waiver for the requirement of the pre-deposit. 6. We have considered the submissions from both the sides and perused the records. 7. The appellant company is a subsidiary company of FSA, France and in terms of their agreement with the France b....