9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (10) TMI 974 - AT - Service TaxCENVAT credit - capital goods - input services - denial on the ground that as per Rule 2(c) of CCR, 2004, the appellant is not entitled to avail CENVAT credit on capital goods and as appellant is providing exempted output service, therefore, they are not entitled to avail CENVAT credit on input services availed for providing those services - Held that - as appellant is provider of cargo handling services and they use tippers as capital goods for providing that service and same is covered under Rule 2(B) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 as capital goods - The period under dispute is prior to 22.6.2010. In that circumstance, the show-cause notice issued by invoking Rule 2(C) as amended by CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 is not applicable to the facts of this case - Credit on capital goods allowed. Input services - Held that - On the basis of the evidence produced, it is a fact that on cargo handling service of urea, the appellant is paying service tax. Therefore, appellant is providing taxable output service - credit on input services allowed. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues:
1. Denial of CENVAT credit on capital goods. 2. Denial of CENVAT credit on input services due to providing exempted output service. Analysis: 1. The appellant appealed against the denial of CENVAT credit on capital goods and input services based on Rule 2(c) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The period of dispute was April 2009 to March 2010. Initially, the definition of capital goods included specific items like pollution control equipment, components, spares, and accessories, among others. However, the definition was later amended, broadening the scope of capital goods. The appellant, a provider of cargo handling services, used tippers as capital goods before the amendment. As the dispute period was prior to the amendment, the show-cause notice invoking the amended rule was deemed inapplicable. Consequently, the denial of CENVAT credit on capital goods was overturned as the tippers fell under the previous definition of capital goods, allowing the appellant to claim the credit. 2. The denial of CENVAT credit on input services was challenged based on the appellant providing exempted output cargo handling services. The audit raised objections to the credit taken on input services due to the nature of the appellant's services. However, it was noted that the appellant provided taxable output services for certain items like maize, tipper, timber, and iron ore. The appellant also demonstrated that they paid service tax on cargo handling services of urea by issuing composite invoices with service tax components. The evidence presented confirmed that service tax was indeed paid on urea handling services, establishing the appellant's provision of taxable output service. Consequently, as per Rule 3 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, the denial of CENVAT credit on input services was deemed unjustified. The impugned order was set aside, and the appellant's appeal was allowed, as they were entitled to claim CENVAT credit on input services for providing taxable output services. In conclusion, the appellate tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, allowing them to claim CENVAT credit on both capital goods and input services, as per the provisions of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, and the specific circumstances of the case.
|
