2014 (10) TMI 606 - AT - Service Tax

Reversal of differential duty of 50% of CENVAT credit - Benefit of Section 80 - Held that - Since there is direct judgement on the issue in the case of Ceolric Services 2011 (2) TMI 764 - CESTAT, BANGALORE remanding the matter to the adjudicating authority, I set aside the impugned order and remand the matter back to the adjudicating authority for reconsideration in view of provisions of Rule 7C of the Rules and after verification of the records. This has to be done as ld. Advocate has contended that they have actually taken cenvat credit of 50% on capital goods but due to mistake it was shown as 100% - Adjudicating authority shall pass order within three months from the date of issue of this order after affording a reasonable opportunity of producing records - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Imposition of penalty and benefit under section 80 of Finance Act, 1994
2. Reversal of differential duty of 50% of cenvat credit on capital goods
3. Application of Rule 7C of Service Tax Rules, 1994 for revised returns

Imposition of Penalty and Benefit under Section 80:
The appellant appealed against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) setting aside the penalty and granting the benefit of section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994. The appellant had wrongly availed 100% cenvat credit on capital goods in their ST-3 returns, contrary to Rule 4(2)(a) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The appellant reversed the excess amount upon discovery but later found that the reversal was a mistake as they were eligible for only 50% credit on capital goods. The appellant requested the Commissioner (Appeals) to consider this issue, citing a Tribunal judgment for similar circumstances. The Tribunal remanded the matter back to the adjudicating authority for reconsideration, emphasizing the need for verification of records and compliance with Rule 7C of the Rules.

Reversal of Differential Duty on Cenvat Credit:
The appellant's representative argued that the reversal of cenvat credit was done mistakenly, as they had actually taken only 50% credit on capital goods but had erroneously shown it as 100% in their returns. The Tribunal noted the direct judgment in a similar case remanding the matter for reconsideration, and thus set aside the impugned order. The Tribunal directed the adjudicating authority to reevaluate the issue in light of Rule 7C of the Rules and verify the records. The appellant's contention that the cenvat credit was correctly taken at 50% despite the error in reporting was considered, leading to the decision to remand the case for further review.

Application of Rule 7C for Revised Returns:
The JCDR argued that the provisions of Rule 7C of the Service Tax Rules, 1994, regarding late filing of revised returns and imposition of penalties, should be strictly applied. The JCDR emphasized that the benefit cannot be granted for a significant delay of 253 days in filing the revised return. The Tribunal acknowledged the JCDR's position but ultimately decided to remand the case back to the adjudicating authority for proper reconsideration and verification of records, ensuring compliance with Rule 7C of the Rules. The Tribunal directed the adjudicating authority to issue a new order within three months, allowing both parties a fair opportunity to present their case.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal by way of remand, highlighting the importance of accurate compliance with the applicable rules and the need for proper verification of records in tax matters.