9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (10) TMI 437 - HC - Service TaxCENVAT Credit - Credit of inputs used in construction of building - Held that - the appellant-DLF Cyber City Developers Limited have been asked to deposit ₹ 8.7 crores as against demand of more than ₹ 50 croes and DLF Limited has been asked to deposit ₹ 1.11 crores as against demand of nearly ₹ 39 crores - Financial stringency was not alleged or stated either before the tribunal or before us -impugned order is fair, just and proper. We clarify that the observations made above are tentative and prima facie and will not be binding on the tribunal when they hear the appeals on merits.
Issues:
1. Interpretation of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 regarding credit on inputs used in construction. 2. Granting of waiver in respect of input services. 3. Assessment of deposit amounts for two appellants. 4. Consideration of financial stringency as a defense. 5. Fairness and propriety of the impugned order. 6. Extension of time for making payment. Analysis: 1. The High Court examined the appellant's claim of credit on inputs used in construction under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The tribunal directed the appellant, the owner of a shopping mall, to pay 35% of the CENVAT credit availed on inputs used in construction. The tribunal referred to divergent views of the Andhra Pradesh High Court and the Gujarat High Court but did not express a detailed opinion on merits, stating that the definition of input tax includes all goods used for providing any output service. 2. Despite the appellant taking advantage of the Works Contract (Composition Scheme for Payment of Service Tax) Rules, 2007, the tribunal granted a complete waiver in respect of input services. This decision was a crucial aspect of the judgment, indicating the tribunal's discretion in granting waivers based on the specific circumstances of the case. 3. The High Court addressed the assessment of deposit amounts for the appellants, stating that DLF Cyber City Developers Limited was asked to deposit Rs.8.7 crores against a demand of over Rs.50 crores, while DLF Limited was asked to deposit Rs.1.11 crores against a demand of nearly Rs.39 crores. This financial aspect was a significant part of the judgment, highlighting the financial implications of the tribunal's decision. 4. The judgment noted that the appellant did not allege financial stringency as a defense either before the tribunal or before the High Court. This observation indicated that the issue of financial stringency was not a factor considered in the tribunal's decision or in the subsequent appeal. 5. The High Court concluded that the impugned order was fair, just, and proper based on the findings and considerations presented. The court clarified that the observations made were tentative and prima facie, emphasizing that they would not be binding on the tribunal when hearing the appeals on merits. This clarification underscored the temporary nature of the observations made in the judgment. 6. Finally, the appellant's counsel requested an extension of time for making payment, which was granted by the court. The time for payment was extended from 19th September, 2013, to 15th October, 2013, allowing the appellant additional time to comply with the tribunal's directives. This extension of time for payment concluded the proceedings, leading to the disposal of the appeal.
|
