2010 (1) TMI 818 - Commissioner - Service Tax

Cenvat credit of Services Tax - credit was availed after one year - Rule 4(7) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - Held that - the said Rule does not stipulate any time period for availment of Cenvat Credit. The appellant have rightly argued that in the case of input services, Rule 4(7) of the Cenvat Credit Rule, 2004 would apply and not Rule 4(1). - In view of the fact that the availment of the Cenvat Credit by the appellants was in consonance with Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 the question of imposition of mandatory penalty under Section 11AC would not arise, order of the original adjudicating authority, Departmental appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
- Availment of Cenvat credit on input services contravening Rule 3(1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.
- Applicability of Rule 4(1) and Rule 4(7) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 in determining the time limit for availing credit.
- Imposition of penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis:
1. The case involved appeals by a company against demands made by the original adjudicating authority regarding irregular availment of Cenvat credit on Services Tax amounting to Rs. 9,49,578/-, contravening Rule 3(1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.
2. The appellants argued that the original authority erred in interpreting Rule 4(1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, which they contended did not specify a time limit for availing credit on input services. They highlighted the absence of the term "immediately" in Rule 4(7) applicable to service tax credit, supporting their stance with judicial precedents.
3. During the hearing, the appellant emphasized that Rule 4(7) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 did not impose a time limit for availing service tax credit, requiring only that payment for the service should precede credit availing.
4. The Commissioner analyzed the rules and found that Rule 4(7) indeed governed the availment of credit on input services, without any specified time limit. Consequently, the denial of credit by the original authority based on a one-year delay was unfounded.
5. Given the compliance with the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 by the appellants, the Commissioner ruled in their favor, setting aside the original adjudicating authority's decision and dismissing the Departmental appeal.
6. The Commissioner further determined that since there was no violation warranting penalty imposition under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, the Departmental appeal's dismissal was justified, concluding the judgment in favor of the appellants.