Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2014 (5) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (5) TMI 1198 - AT - Central ExciseCENVAT Credit - manufacture of white cement and white cement putty - input services - consultancy services received in respect of feasibility studies for cement plant at Oman - reverse charge mechanism - extended period of limitation - the Revenue has invoked the longer period of limitation by simplicitor observing that the appellant has not disclosed the nature of the service in respect of which credit was availed - HELD THAT - Commissioner (Appeals) has observed that the returns filed by the appellant only shows the total amount of credit by which it cannot be inferred that credit of certain inadmissible input services was availed - there are no justification in the stand of the lower authorities. Admittedly, the credit was duly reflected in the returns, which were filed with the Revenue. In the absence of any column in returns requiring the nature of the input or input services, the non-disclosure of the same cannot attribute any mala fide to the assessee. Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Prolite Engineering Co. v. Union of India 1990 (3) TMI 89 - HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT has observed that non-disclosure of information, which is not required to be disclosed or recorded by statutory provisions or prescribed proforma does not amount to suppression or concealment - By applying the ratio, the demand is held to be barred by limitation. Demand of interest and penalty under Rule 76 - HELD THAT - It stands observed by Commissioner (Appeals) that the notice proposed confirmation of interest and imposition of penalties by adopting the due date on the basis of the date of the invoices whereas the service tax liability was discharged on the basis of actual payment date, which is subsequent to the raising of the invoices. As such, he has held that the service tax liability for interest and imposition of penalties is not called for - Revenue in their memo of appeal have not disputed or rebutted the above finding of fact by Commissioner (Appeals) and have simplicitor, in a mechanical way, reiterated that interest and penalty are required to confirmed and imposed. In the absence of any rebuttal to the finding that the tax was discharged within time by taking the actual payment date as the relevant date, there are no reasons to interfere in the said part of the impugned order. Decided in favor of assessee.
Issues:
1. Eligibility of Cenvat credit for service tax on consultancy services for feasibility studies in a foreign country. 2. Invocation of longer period of limitation for denial of Cenvat credit. 3. Dispute regarding interest and penalty imposition based on due date vs. actual payment date. Analysis: 1. The dispute centered around the eligibility of the appellant to avail Cenvat credit for service tax paid on consultancy services for feasibility studies in a foreign country. The lower authorities denied the credit, stating it was not related to the appellant's business activities in India. The Revenue sought to deny the credit through a Show Cause Notice invoking the longer period of limitation. However, the Tribunal found that the non-disclosure of the nature of the service did not justify the denial of credit. The Tribunal referenced a decision by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, stating that non-disclosure of information not required by statutory provisions does not constitute suppression. Consequently, the demand was held to be barred by limitation, and the appellant's appeals were allowed. 2. The Tribunal addressed the issue of the invocation of the longer period of limitation for denying the Cenvat credit. It noted that the Revenue had invoked the longer period merely based on the lack of disclosure regarding the nature of the service for which credit was availed. The Commissioner (Appeals) observed that the returns filed by the appellant did not specify the nature of the input services. However, the Tribunal found no justification for this stand, emphasizing that the credit was duly reflected in the returns. Since the returns did not require disclosure of the nature of the input services, the non-disclosure could not be deemed as mala fide. Citing a precedent, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, holding the demand to be barred by limitation. 3. The issue of interest and penalty imposition based on the due date versus the actual payment date was also addressed. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the interest and penalty, noting that the notice proposed confirmation of interest and penalties based on the due date of invoices, whereas the service tax liability was discharged based on the actual payment date. The Revenue, in their appeal, did not dispute this finding and mechanically reiterated the need for interest and penalty. The Tribunal, finding no rebuttal to the fact that the tax was discharged within time based on the actual payment date, rejected the Revenue's appeal and allowed the appellant's appeals. In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appellant's appeals regarding the eligibility of Cenvat credit and rejected the Revenue's appeal concerning interest and penalty imposition, emphasizing the importance of proper disclosure and adherence to statutory provisions in tax matters.
|