2018 (5) TMI 567 - HC - Service Tax

CENVAT credit - common input services - Whether the 1st respondent is correct in denying the entire common input service credit availed by the Appellant on an incorrect factual premise that the appellant has availed the option under Rule 6(2) of CCR for certain common input services and Rule 6(3) of CCR for certain other common input services? - Matter is remanded to CESTAT, Chennai for fresh consideration on merits.

Summary

Issues:
1. Denial of common input service credit under CENVAT credit rules
2. Denial of benefit under Rule 6(3A) of the CCR
3. Disallowance of entire common input service credit without provision for lapsing
4. Disallowance of cenvat credit beyond the proposal in the SCN
5. Invocation of extended period of limitation without satisfying conditions
6. Imposition of penalty under Section 76 and Rule 15(3) and Rule 15(4) of the CCR without proper findings

Analysis:

1. Denial of common input service credit under CENVAT credit rules:
The appellant raised substantial legal questions regarding the denial of common input service credit under the CENVAT credit rules. The main contention was the incorrect factual premise used by the 1st respondent to deny the credit. The appellant argued that there was no provision enabling the disallowance or lapsing of validly availed credit. The court was asked to consider whether the denial was justified and whether the appellant had followed the rules correctly.

2. Denial of benefit under Rule 6(3A) of the CCR:
Another issue raised was the denial of the benefit provided under Rule 6(3A) of the CCR. The appellant questioned the correctness of this denial and argued that the option to reverse proportionate credit was available from a specific date onwards. The court was asked to review whether the denial was in accordance with the law.

3. Disallowance of entire common input service credit without provision for lapsing:
The appellant contested the disallowance of the entire common input service credit without any provision for lapsing. It was argued that there was no machinery provision under the rules for such disallowance. The court was requested to examine the validity of this disallowance and whether it was legally justified.

4. Disallowance of cenvat credit beyond the proposal in the SCN:
The appellant challenged the disallowance of cenvat credit on grounds beyond the proposal in the show cause notice (SCN). The court was asked to determine whether the disallowance was based on valid grounds and within the scope of the SCN.

5. Invocation of extended period of limitation without satisfying conditions:
The appellant disputed the invocation of the extended period of limitation without satisfying the necessary conditions. It was argued that none of the ingredients for invoking the extended period had been met in the present case. The court was requested to assess the validity of invoking the extended period of limitation.

6. Imposition of penalty under Section 76 and Rule 15(3) and Rule 15(4) of the CCR without proper findings:
Lastly, the appellant contested the imposition of penalties under Section 76 and Rule 15(3) and Rule 15(4) of the CCR without any proper findings. It was argued that the penalties were imposed without adequate justification or findings. The court was asked to review the imposition of penalties and the lack of findings in this regard.

In conclusion, the High Court set aside the impugned orders on specific grounds raised by the appellant and remanded the matter back to the CESTAT for fresh consideration on merits without delving into the substantive issues of the case.