2008 (9) TMI 269 - AT - Service Tax

Distribution of Cenvat credit on the Service tax paid by applicants on the input services and advertisement services - applicants took the credit of the Service tax paid on such input services at head office and distributed the same to various establishments - It is the revenue s case that one of the establishment is manufacturing goods, which is not final product, but is captively used in similar case earlier, tribunal waived pre-deposit - applicants submitted that the Commissioner (Appeals) has dismissed their appeal for non-compliance of the stay order case is remanded to Commissioner (Appeals) to pass an order on merits

Summary

Issues:
Distribution of Cenvat credit on service tax paid by applicants on input services and advertisement services, waiver of pre-deposit amount of Service tax and penalties imposed under Rule 15 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.

Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT MUMBAI involved two applications seeking waiver of pre-deposit amount of Service tax and penalties under Rule 15 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The issue at hand pertained to the distribution of Cenvat credit on service tax paid by the applicants on input services and advertisement services received from various advertising agencies. The applicants had taken credit for the service tax paid on input services at their head office and distributed the same to various establishments during the period from March to October 2005. One such establishment where the service tax was distributed was at Turbhe. The revenue contended that the Turbhe unit, where the service tax was distributed, was manufacturing electrolytic manganese dioxide (EMD) for the manufacture of Eveready batteries at other locations, which was not the final product. The Tribunal noted a similar issue in a previous order where a stay was granted to the applicants therein, emphasizing revenue neutrality and the need to restore the credit for distribution among units where input services were rendered. Consequently, the Tribunal granted the waiver of pre-deposit in the current case as well, considering the circumstances.

The Tribunal acknowledged the dismissal of the appeal by the Commissioner (Appeals) due to non-compliance with the pre-deposit order. However, since the pre-deposit of the service tax and penalties was waived by the Tribunal, the matter was remanded back to the Commissioner (Appeals) to pass an order on merits. The Commissioner (Appeals) was directed to provide a personal hearing to the applicants and make a decision on the merits without insisting on any pre-deposit. Therefore, the stay petitions and appeals were disposed of with this directive from the Tribunal. The judgment highlighted the importance of considering revenue implications, the necessity of restoring credit for distribution, and the procedural aspects related to pre-deposit requirements in such cases.

This detailed analysis of the judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT MUMBAI provides a comprehensive understanding of the issues involved, the Tribunal's decision on the waiver of pre-deposit, and the subsequent remand of the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a decision on merits without the need for pre-deposit.