2018 (7) TMI 534 - AT - Service Tax

Extended period of limitation - suppression of facts or not - CENVAT Credit on various input services - Held that - There is no positive act of suppression established by the department. The period involved is September 2004 and March 2009. The show cause notice is dt.11.9.2009. Undeniably the departmental audit was conducted from 22.05.2006 to 24.05.2006 and 24.9.2007 to 27.9.2007. The audit party has not raised any objection on the credit availed by the appellant - extended period of limitation cannot be invoked - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Issues:
1. Eligibility of Cenvat Credit on various services.
2. Disallowance of credit and recovery of amount.
3. Suppression of facts leading to demand for the extended period.
4. Arguments regarding the address details in the invoices.
5. Audit findings and objections raised.
6. Decision on the appeal filed by the department.

Eligibility of Cenvat Credit on various services:
The respondents were engaged in manufacturing and clearance of Aluminium Powder and availed Cenvat Credit on services like Telephone, Security, Banking, Warehousing, Insurance, and Chartered Accountant Services. The department contended that the credit availed was improper due to missing factory address in the invoices and questioned the nexus of insurance services with the manufacturing process.

Disallowance of credit and recovery of amount:
A Show Cause Notice was issued proposing disallowance of credit, recovery of the amount with interest, and imposition of penalties. The original authority confirmed the demand and ordered recovery of a specific amount along with penalties. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the demand for the extended period, confirming it only for the normal period, leading to the department appealing before the Tribunal.

Suppression of facts leading to demand for the extended period:
The department argued that the respondents suppressed facts as the invoices lacked required details, making them ineligible for credit. The department claimed that the suppression was revealed during an audit, justifying the demand for the extended period. The Commissioner (Appeals) was criticized for setting aside the demand without establishing a positive act of suppression.

Arguments regarding the address details in the invoices:
The respondent's counsel argued that mentioning the appellant depot address instead of the factory address was a procedural error, not warranting denial of Cenvat Credit. It was highlighted that the audit conducted did not raise objections to the credit availed, indicating the department's awareness. The Show Cause Notice invoking the extended period was deemed unsustainable and rightly set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals).

Audit findings and objections raised:
Audit conducted on specific dates did not raise objections to the credit availed by the appellant, indicating the department's knowledge of the situation. This fact was crucial in the argument against the invocation of the extended period for demand.

Decision on the appeal filed by the department:
The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) decision, stating that no suppression of facts was established, and the extended period could not be invoked. The appellant's reflection of credit in their returns, lack of objections during audits, and the non-contestation of the demand for the normal period were key factors in dismissing the appeal filed by the department. The cross objection filed by the respondent was not pressed, further solidifying the decision in favor of the respondent.

← Previous Next →