2014 (10) TMI 729 - AT - Service Tax

CENVAT Credit - demand against the Input Service Distributor under Rule 14 - contravention of Rules 2(l) 2(m) and 7 of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 - Held that - Identical proceedings were earlier initiated by way of two show cause notices dated 21-9-2010 covering the period 2005-2006 to 2009-2010. These proceedings were however dropped by the Commissioner by the order dated 27-8-2012 on the ground that the demand for recovery of Cenvat credit cannot be raised against the Input Service Distributor under Rule 14 of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004; and where Cenvat credit is wrongly availed and utilized the same should be recovered from the manufacturer or provider of output services. The wholly contrary conclusion and reasoning is adopted in the impugned order vis-a-vis the earlier order referred to. In a prima facie construction of the provisions of Rule 14 of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 we are of the view that the impugned order is unsustainable - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Disallowance of Cenvat credit allegedly wrongly availed by the appellant and distributed during a specific period.
2. Contravention of Rules 2(l), 2(m), and 7 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.
3. Recovery of disallowed amount and imposition of penalty under Rule 15 of the Rules.
4. Interpretation of Rule 14 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 regarding recovery of wrongly availed credit.

Analysis:

1. The impugned order disallowed the Cenvat credit of a significant amount allegedly wrongly availed by the appellant and distributed by another entity during a specific period, citing contravention of Rules 2(l), 2(m), and 7 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The order directed the recovery of the disallowed amount and imposed a penalty of equal value under Rule 15 of the Rules for the specified contraventions. The appellant, an input service distributor, had distributed the Cenvat credit to the manufacturer of High Speed Diesel.

2. Earlier proceedings were initiated through show cause notices covering a different period, which were subsequently dropped by the Commissioner on the grounds that the demand for recovery of Cenvat credit cannot be raised against the Input Service Distributor under Rule 14 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. It was reasoned that where Cenvat credit is wrongly availed and utilized, the recovery should be sought from the manufacturer or provider of output services. The impugned order, however, took a wholly different stance compared to the earlier decision, leading to a contradiction in conclusions and reasoning.

3. The Tribunal, upon a prima facie examination of the provisions of Rule 14 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, found the impugned order to be unsustainable based on the reasons presented. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned adjudication order and allowed the appeal. The decision was made after waiving the pre-deposit requirement and hearing the arguments from both parties' counsels.

This detailed analysis outlines the key issues involved in the legal judgment, focusing on the disallowance of Cenvat credit, contravention of rules, recovery of amounts, and the interpretation of relevant provisions under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.