ORDER
R.K. Abichandani, J. (President)
1. After hearing both the sides and going through the record and the impugned order, it appears that Cenvat credit was denied to the appellant on the ground that the goods receipt was not a cenvatable document. It, however, appears from the record shown by the learned Authorized Representative for the appellant, which according to him, already forms a part of the record before the authorities below, that challans were produced. It was pointed out that the document was TR-6 as well as challan. It, prima facie, appears that though in Clause (e) of the explanation to Rule 9(1), the amendment incorporating “Clause (v) of Clause (d) of Sub-rule (1) of Rule 2 of the Service Tax Rules, 1994”, was added with effect from 16-6-2005, there was already a provision in Clause (f) of the explanation to Rule 9(1), under which it was clarified that cenvatable invoice includes an invoice, a bill or challan issued by a provider of input service on or after the 10th day of September, 2004. The challans even in the present case were issued after 10-9-2004 by the transport provider.
2. The appellant has, therefore, made out a prima facie case for waiving pre-deposit of the credit disallowed and the penalty imposed under the impugned order. The applications are, accordingly, allowed. The appeals will come up for final hearing in their due course.
[Dictated and pronounced in the open Court]
