2008 (2) TMI 278 - AT - Service Tax

Credit denied on the ground that the payment of Service Tax under TR-6 challan cannot be treated as evidence and TR-6 challan cannot be considered as a prescribed document held that In terms of Rule 6(2) of STR 1994 the assessee is required to deposit Tax in Form i.e. TR-6 challan and therefore TR-6 Challans should have been taken to be adequate evidence of payment of Tax entitling the appellant to claim Cenvat credit matter remanded to the Commissioner for fresh consideration

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against order-in-original for recovery of Service Tax and Education Cess disallowing Cenvat credit utilization.

Analysis:
1. The appeal challenged the order-in-original directing recovery of Service Tax and Education Cess from the appellant, disallowing the Cenvat credit utilized between specific dates. The Commissioner imposed penalties and interest as well. The appellant contended that TR-6 challan payments should be considered as evidence for claiming Cenvat credit under Rule 9 of the Cenvat Credit Rules.

2. The Tribunal found merit in the appellant's argument regarding TR-6 challans as valid proof of Service Tax payment, as required by Rule 9(1)(e) of the Cenvat Credit Rules. The Commissioner failed to address this crucial aspect, leading to the decision to set aside the order for fresh consideration. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of TR-6 challans as sufficient evidence for claiming Cenvat credit.

3. The Tribunal delved into the legal framework surrounding Service Tax payment liabilities, citing amendments to the Service Tax Rules and Cenvat Credit Rules. Notably, the amendments clarified the persons liable for paying Service Tax in specific scenarios, affecting the entitlement to claim Cenvat credit. The Tribunal highlighted the relevance of these amendments in determining the appellant's eligibility for Cenvat credit during the disputed period.

4. Considering the legislative changes and the need for a thorough examination of the transactions, the Tribunal remanded the matter back to the Commissioner for a fresh review. The Tribunal stressed the importance of verifying whether the appellant met the criteria for claiming Cenvat credit based on the amended rules. The decision aimed to ensure a fair and lawful assessment of the appellant's entitlement to Cenvat credit.

5. Ultimately, the Tribunal disposed of the appeal by setting aside the impugned order and instructing a reevaluation by the Commissioner. The decision emphasized the significance of adhering to the legal provisions and amendments governing Cenvat credit claims, underscoring the need for a meticulous review of the appellant's eligibility based on the established rules and amendments.