2011 (7) TMI 308 - AT - Service Tax

Interest - Service tax paid on GTA services availed by them for inward transportation of goods by utilising cenvat credit - On the ground that the said services were not output services for the respondents, they were informed that service tax should be paid in cash - Accordingly, the respondents paid the service tax in cash and thereafter, proceedings were initiated for demand of interest on the ground that reversal of cenvat credit does not amount to payment of tax and since service tax was not paid by the due date, interest is payable - Since the respondents did not retain any money due to the Government and it was only a procedural irregularity - The Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Vadodara-I vs. Vulcan Gears - (2009 -TMI - 34739 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD), held that appeal filed by the Revenue is rejected.

Summary

Issues:
1. Liability to pay interest on service tax due to reversal of cenvat credit.
2. Interpretation of whether reversal of cenvat credit amounts to payment of tax.
3. Applicability of interest on service tax payment timeline.

Analysis:
1. The case involved a dispute regarding the liability to pay interest on service tax when cenvat credit was reversed by the respondents for GTA services. The respondents had paid the service tax in cash after being informed that the services were not considered output services for them. Subsequently, proceedings were initiated for the demand of interest, claiming that the reversal of cenvat credit did not constitute tax payment. The Commissioner (Appeals) ruled in favor of the respondent, stating that no interest was payable as there was no delay in payment since the service tax was paid in time by reversing the cenvat credit.

2. The Tribunal, in its analysis, considered the precedent set by a previous case involving a similar issue. The Tribunal noted that the appellant did not retain any money due to the government by reversing the cenvat credit, and the subsequent payment in cash was merely a procedural rectification. It was emphasized that no financial benefit was gained by the respondents through this process. Therefore, the Tribunal aligned with the view taken in the previous case, where it was established that the reversal of cenvat credit did not amount to withholding tax money from the government, leading to the rejection of the appeal filed by the Revenue.

3. The Tribunal's decision was based on the understanding that the reversal of cenvat credit and subsequent cash payment by the respondents did not result in any delay or financial advantage for them. As the respondents rectified a procedural irregularity without retaining any money owed to the government, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) ruling and rejected the appeal filed by the Revenue. This judgment clarified the interpretation of tax payment timelines and the treatment of cenvat credit reversal in service tax matters, providing a legal precedent for similar cases in the future.