9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (5) TMI 119 - AT - Service TaxRemoval as such - Reversal of proportionate cenvat credit of service tax paid on the GTA service - as per dept. instead of utilizing the entire quantity of iron ores in the manufacture of final products, they have sold a quantity of 2455.05 MTs of iron ores as iron ore fines - demand confirmed and an penalty of ₹ 2,000/- u/r 15 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, besides recovery of interest - Held that - No merit in the allegation of Department as firstly the input iron ores after being brought to the factory, were subjected to the process of screening and process of screening would definitely a part of the manufacturing process. After the iron ores are subjected to the process of screening, the same could not be called as input as such. Secondly, Rule 3 (5) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, is directed for reversal of cenvat credit on inputs or capital goods and the same is not applicable to the credit availed on the input services . See Punjab Steels (2010 (7) TMI 252 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT) & Chitrakoot Steel & Power (P.) Ltd. (2007 (11) TMI 135 - CESTAT, CHENNAI) wherein held that when the credit availed inputs or capital goods are removed from the factory of the assessee, sub-rule (5) of Rule 3 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 provides for recovery of equal amount of credit. There is no such provision to reverse credit of service tax availed in relation to such inputs or capital goods when removed from the factory. In favour of assessee.
Issues:
1. Reversal of cenvat credit on GTA services for iron ore fines not used in manufacturing final product. 2. Interpretation of Rule 3(5) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 regarding credit on input services. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: The appeal involved a dispute regarding the reversal of cenvat credit on GTA services for iron ore fines not utilized in the manufacturing process of sponge iron. The Department alleged that the appellants sold iron ore fines without using them in the final product, leading to a demand for reversal of cenvat credit. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision, prompting the appeal. The appellant argued that the process of screening iron ore to remove fines was an essential part of the manufacturing process of sponge iron. They contended that the iron ore fines generated during screening were unavoidable waste and not removed as such. Referring to relevant rules, the appellant asserted that the credit on input services could not be denied based on the presence of waste in the input material. They also highlighted that Rule 3(5) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, concerning the reversal of credit on inputs or capital goods, did not apply to input services. After considering the arguments, the Tribunal found that the iron ores were indeed used in the manufacture of sponge iron, and the process of screening was integral to the manufacturing process. The Tribunal disagreed with the Department's claim that the iron ore fines were not used in the final product. Additionally, the Tribunal clarified that Rule 3(5) specifically pertained to credit on inputs or capital goods and did not extend to input services. Citing previous judgments and legal provisions, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the Commissioner's decision and allowing the appeal. Issue 2: The interpretation of Rule 3(5) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 was a crucial aspect of the case. The Tribunal emphasized that the rule only addressed the reversal of credit on inputs or capital goods, excluding input services from its purview. By referencing previous judgments and legal provisions, the Tribunal established that the specific language and intent of the rule did not encompass the reversal of credit on input services. This clarification played a significant role in determining the outcome of the appeal and provided a legal basis for the appellant's argument against the reversal of cenvat credit on GTA services for iron ore fines.
|
