9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (2) TMI 276 - AT - Central ExciseDenial of CENVAT Credit - Interest under Rule 14 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - Penalty under Rule 15(1) Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - Revenue denied credit because Cenvat Credit of Service Tax paid on GTA Services from the place of removal is not admissible - Held that - Rule 14 specifically provides that where CENVAT credit has been taken or utilized wrongly or has been erroneously refunded, the same along with interest would be recovered from the manufacturer or the provider of the output service - Following decision of UOI Vs. Ind- Swift Laboratories Ltd. (2011 (2) TMI 6 - Supreme Court) decided against the assessee. Regarding penalty - Held that - Appellant was under the bonafide belief that Cenvat Credit is admissible on GTA Services. As there is no indication of suppression with intention to evade any Service Tax, therefore, penalty is not attracted in this case under Rule 15 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues:
1. Denial of Cenvat Credit on GTA services from the place of removal to the place of delivery. 2. Charging of interest on wrongly taken Cenvat Credit. 3. Imposition of penalty under Rule 15 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Analysis: Issue 1: Denial of Cenvat Credit on GTA services The Appellant filed an appeal against the denial of Cenvat Credit and imposition of a penalty under Rule 15(1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The dispute arose due to the amendment in the definition of 'Input Services' under Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, via Notification No.10/2008-C.E.(N.T.) dated 01.03.2008. The Appellant claimed Cenvat Credit for Service Tax paid on GTA services from the place of removal, which the Revenue contended was inadmissible post-amendment. Issue 2: Charging of interest on wrongly taken Cenvat Credit The Appellant argued against the imposition of interest on the wrongly taken Cenvat Credit, citing various case laws where interest was not levied when the credit was reversed without utilization. However, the Revenue relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in UOI Vs. IND -SWIFT LABORATORIES LTD., asserting that interest liability arises as soon as incorrect Cenvat Credit is availed. Issue 3: Imposition of penalty Regarding the penalty imposed on the Appellant, it was contended that the Appellant acted under a bona fide belief of admissibility of Cenvat Credit on GTA services, supported by conflicting views in case laws. The absence of intent to evade Service Tax led to the conclusion that no penalty should be imposed under Rule 15 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The Tribunal analyzed the provisions of Rule 14 concerning the recovery of wrongly taken Cenvat Credit and interest. It emphasized that interest is applicable when credit is taken or utilized erroneously, as per Section 11AB, and misinterpretation of Rule 14 by the High Court was clarified. The Apex Court's ruling in UOI Vs. Ind -Swift Laboratories Ltd. guided the interpretation of Rule 14, emphasizing the recovery of credit along with interest upon any of the specified circumstances. In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal to the extent that no penalty was justified against the Appellant in this case. The judgment highlighted the specific application of Rule 14 for interest on wrongly taken Cenvat Credit, emphasizing the need to adhere to the Supreme Court's interpretation in such matters. This detailed analysis of the judgment provides a comprehensive understanding of the issues, arguments presented, legal interpretations, and the final decision rendered by the Tribunal.
|
