Archana Wadhawa, Member (J) - (1.)AFTER dispensing with the conditions of pre -deposit service tax, we proceed to decide the appeal itself, inasmuch the issue lies in an narrow compass.
(2.)THE benefit of Notification No. 01/2006 -ST dated 1.3.2006, which provided for abatement of value of services, stands denied to the Appellants on the ground that they have availed credit and as such they have not fulfilled the condition of the notification.
On the other hand, it is the Appellant's contention that credit availed by them initially stands reversed subsequently. They have contested that the said reversal of credit amounts to a situation as if No. credit was availed by them. By relying upon the various decisions, learned Advocate submits that the benefit of notification cannot be denied on the ground that the said reversal of credit was subsequent to the availment of exemption notification.

(3.)WE find that the issue No. more res integra as the same stands settled by the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Hello Minerals Water (P) Ltd. v. Union of India reported in : 2004 (174) ELT 422 by taking into account the subsequent decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chandrapur Magnet Wires (P) Ltd. v. CCE reported in : 1996 (81) ELT 3 (SC) has held that subsequent reversal of MODVAT credit amounts to non taking of credit on inputs and the benefit of exemption of notification cannot be denied even if reversal of credit on input was done at the Tribunal's stage, to the same effect decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CCE, Ahmedabad -II v. Maize Products reported in : 2009 (234) ELT 431 (Guj.).