VIKRAM ISPAT Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are four stay applications for waiver of pre -deposit of the service tax credit irregularly taken and demanded from them vide four impugned orders. Since the nature of the dispute in all the appeals is more or less same they are being decided by this common order.

(2.) THE Ld. Advocate appearing for the applicant raised the preliminary objection common to all appeal stating that all the cases involved availment and utilization of credit on input services and in such cases the demand should have been issued under Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994 instead of Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, as has been done in the present case. It is his submission that under Rule 514 of the Cenvat Credit Rules both Section 11A and Section 73 of the Finance Act, have been applicable for recovery credit irregularly taken and utilized and it is his submission that in respect of credit relating to input services the demand should have been made under Section 73 and in case of credit relating to the inputs the demand should be made under Section 11A and since in his case the credit relates to input services demand cannot be raised under Section 11A.

(3.) ON merits it was submitted that the credit of the input services like mobile services has been held to be admissible and in this regard he referred to the Tribunal decision in the case of CCE(LTU) Chennai v. Brakes India Ltd. reported in, 2008 (89) RLT 876 (CESTAT -Che.) which in turn relied on several other decisions of the Tribunal to this effect. In respect of Rent -a -cab service, Association service and Security Service, it is his submission that they have to be considered as input service as per the inclusive definition of 'input service' as these services are meant for carrying on the business . He place reliance on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai -V v. GTC Industries Ltd. .