2009 (6) TMI 71 - AT - Service Tax

Benefit of abatement under notification 1/2006 Cenvat Credit - Notification No. 01/2006-ST dated 01.3.2006 provides that if the service provider avails cenvat credit on capital goods and inputs and input services, such service provider will not be entitled for the benefit of abatement of 67% for the purpose of levy of service tax. The respondents voluntarily reversed the entire cenvat credit and interest thereon once it was pointed out to them that they cannot avail the benefit of Notification if they have availed the benefit of service tax credit on the input services held that benefit of abatement allowed despite the fact that credit reversed subsequently.

Summary

Issues:
1. Availment of Cenvat credit on input services and subsequent reversal for eligibility of abatement of 67% for Service tax.
2. Imposition of penalties on the respondents for availing Cenvat credit on input services.
3. Interpretation of exemption Notification regarding utilization and reversal of credit.
4. Applicability of decisions by Hon'ble Supreme Court and Tribunal in similar cases.

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The case involves M/s. Amola Holdings Private Limited engaged in providing taxable services. The respondents voluntarily reversed the Cenvat credit and interest upon realizing ineligibility for abatement due to availing Service tax credit on input services. The impugned order imposed penalties, which were set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals) citing a Supreme Court decision. The Revenue appealed against this decision.

Issue 2:
The Revenue contended that once Cenvat credit on input services was availed, the respondents became ineligible for abatement, citing strict construction of exemption Notification and various legal precedents. The Advocate for the respondents argued that the issue aligns with Tribunal decisions and an Allahabad High Court case, asserting that the Supreme Court judgment cited by the Revenue was not directly applicable to the case.

Issue 3:
The Tribunal analyzed the applicability of the Supreme Court decision in Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. Ltd. to the case at hand. It was noted that the Supreme Court's observation on non-utilization of credit before reversal was not the basis of the decision. Instead, the Tribunal found that the decisions cited by the Advocate for the respondents directly applied to the case, emphasizing the need for reversal of credit even after final product clearance.

Issue 4:
Based on the Tribunal's assessment and the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Allahabad High Court in similar cases, it was concluded that the benefit of Notification could be extended to the respondents as per the precedent set by the Tribunal and the High Court. The appeal filed by the Revenue was deemed meritless, and subsequently rejected.

In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the respondents, highlighting the importance of following precedent decisions and legal interpretations in matters concerning Cenvat credit, abatement eligibility, and reversal of credit for taxable services.