2015 (9) TMI 823 - AT - Service Tax

Denial of CENVAT Credit - Invocation of extended period of limitation - whether CENVAT credit of service tax paid on commission charges under Business Auxiliary Services, paid to the Foreign Agency by the appellant will be admissible under Rule 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - Held that - CENVAT credit taken by the appellant with respect to Commission Charges paid to the Foreign Agencies, which was required to be paid under reverse charge by the appellant. The issue was decided by the Hon ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CCE, Ahmedabad vs. Cadila Healthcare 2013 (1) TMI 304 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT . In the present factual matrix, extended period of limitation for demanding duty can not be invoked as the appellant was under bonafide belief that such credit on Commission Charges paid was admissible. It is further observed that show cause notice for the years 2005-06 to November 2007 was issued on 22.03.2011 and was clearly time-barred. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Admissibility of CENVAT credit on commission charges under Business Auxiliary Services paid to Foreign Agency.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed concerning OIA No. CCEA-SRT-II-SSP-222-U-S-35A dated 07.01.2013, focusing on the admissibility of CENVAT credit on service tax paid on commission charges under Business Auxiliary Services to a Foreign Agency. The main contention was whether Rule 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 allowed for such credit.

The appellant's representative argued that a similar issue had been decided against the assesses by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in a previous case. It was highlighted that the demand was time-barred as the show cause notice was issued on 22.03.2011 for the period from April 2006 to November 2007. The representative emphasized that there was confusion regarding the admissibility of CENVAT credit on commission charges paid under reverse charge mechanism, and due to this confusion, the appellant genuinely believed that the credit was permissible.

Upon hearing both sides and examining the case records, it was established that the issue revolved around the CENVAT credit taken by the appellant for commission charges paid to Foreign Agencies, which were subject to reverse charge. Reference was made to a previous judgment by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in a case involving Cadila Healthcare. It was noted that the show cause notice for the relevant period was issued on 22.03.2011, rendering it time-barred. The tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, allowing the appeal on the grounds of the show cause notice being time-barred, as the extended period of limitation could not be invoked in this instance.

In conclusion, the judgment centered on the admissibility of CENVAT credit on commission charges paid to a Foreign Agency under Business Auxiliary Services, with a key focus on the time-barred nature of the show cause notice and the appellant's genuine belief in the credit's admissibility based on previous judicial decisions.