9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (8) TMI 1380 - AT - Central ExciseRecovery of wrongly availed CENVAT credit - Jurisdiction of authorities to re-determine tax liability - scope for liability for tax on non-existent servicing charge - Rule 3 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 - Credit was sought to be denied only on the ground that such servicing charge having been done away with, it was no longer a component of the price of input and, hence, outside the ambit of rule 3 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 - Held that - From the decision of MDS Switchgear Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Excise Customs, Aurangabad 2001 (4) TMI 130 - CEGAT, MUMBAI it is held authorities conferred with jurisdiction over the recipient is not competent to re-determine the tax liability suffered on the input at the supply end - denial of credit not sustainable - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues:
Recovery of CENVAT credit, penalty imposition under CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, eligibility for CENVAT credit, liability for tax on servicing charge, obligation to submit evidence of eligibility for credit, double benefit of CENVAT credit, jurisdiction to re-determine tax liability on input, denial of refund claim on documentation charges. Analysis: The judgment pertains to the recovery of CENVAT credit and penalty imposition on M/s Deepak Fertilizers & Petrochemicals Corporation Ltd. The appellant availed CENVAT credit on tax paid for natural gas supplied by M/s Gas Authority of India Ltd. The dispute arose when the servicing charge included in the supply price was withdrawn with retrospective effect by the Central Government. The supplier issued a credit note acknowledging the debt of the servicing charge excluding the tax paid. The original authority contended that the appellant was not entitled to CENVAT credit as the servicing charge was non-existent, and the appellant failed to provide evidence of eligibility for credit as required by rule 9 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. Additionally, the authority deemed the appellant's action as seeking a double benefit by availing credit on a reduced cost component. The Tribunal considered precedents from MDS Switchgear Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs and Jollyboard Ltd v. Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise, Aurangabad. These cases emphasized that the recipient manufacturer is entitled to avail the benefit of duty paid by the supplier and that the jurisdictional offices of the recipient cannot challenge the duty already determined by the supplier. The Tribunal highlighted that the denial of CENVAT credit by the authorities overseeing the recipient's factory is not sustainable in law. It was noted that the tax liability on the input at the supply end cannot be re-determined by the recipient's jurisdiction. Ultimately, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal, emphasizing that the denial of CENVAT credit on the tax paid on the servicing charge was not justified based on the legal principles outlined in the cited cases. The judgment underscores the importance of adhering to the rules governing CENVAT credit eligibility and the limitations on re-determining tax liability at the recipient's end.
|
