2016 (3) TMI 484 - HC - Service Tax

Availment of input service credit - Whether CENVAT credit can be claimed or not in terms of the options provided or after discharging the liability in full - Held that - Revenue is not put to loss as the tax liability has been discharged in full so We should not undertake an academic exercise. In the light of various observations and findings rendered on the interpretation of the Rule 2A and Section 67 of the Finance Act 1994 a scrutiny thereof can be undertaken in an appropriate case meaning thereby that the exercise of satisfying ourselves whether these findings and conclusions are sustainable in the light of the language of the rule and the substantive provision is something which need not detain us in this case. By clarifying that all such issues raised and the substantial questions of law can be gone into in appropriate case where Revenue has sustained any loss or there is evasion of tax. Appeal disposed of

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the appeal arising from the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal order dated 17 March 2014 should be entertained as it involves substantial questions of law.

Analysis:
The judgment begins by acknowledging the arguments presented by both sides, with the Revenue's advocate asserting that the questions raised are substantial questions of law warranting the appeal's consideration. The Court then delves into the facts of the case, highlighting that the assessee is a service provider in various categories, including works contract service and construction service. The assessee availed CENVAT credit and paid service tax at the prescribed rate. However, a discrepancy arose regarding the availed CENVAT credit on inputs and input services, leading to scrutiny by the Revenue.

Moving forward, the judgment references Rule 2A of the Service Tax (Determination of Values) Rules, 2006, which the assessee did not adopt but argued for availing input credit after paying service tax in full. It was established that there was no revenue loss despite the initial confusion. The Court considered the issue of whether input service credit could be claimed in accordance with the provided options or after discharging the liability in full. It was agreed that there was no loss to the Revenue as the tax liability had been discharged entirely.

Consequently, the Court concluded that since there was no revenue loss and the tax liability had been met, there was no need for further examination of the case. The judgment emphasized that a detailed scrutiny of the interpretations of relevant rules and provisions could be undertaken in an appropriate case where revenue loss or tax evasion is evident. Therefore, the Court decided to dispose of the appeal while leaving the substantial questions of law open for future consideration in suitable circumstances.