2018 (7) TMI 789 - AT - Service Tax

Benefit of Rule 6(5) of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 - Insertion of sub-rule 3AA in Cenvat Credit (Third amendment) Rules, 2016 with effect from 01.04.2016 - Held that - Sub-rule 3AA says that manufacturer or a provider of output service who failed to exercise the option provided under sub-rule (3) is supposed to be given a chance by the competent authority to follow the procedure and pay the amount referred in clause 2 of sub-rule 3. In view of non-extension of benefit provided under Rule 6(5) to the appellant by the adjudicating authority to the appellant which would require production and scrutinisation of documentary evidence. It is a fit case which should be remanded to the original adjudicating authority for fresh adjudication - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Issues:
1. Non-extension of Rule 6(5) benefits to the appellant.
2. Application of sub-rule 3AA to the appellant's case.
3. Nature of business classification under trading and exemption category.
4. Remand for fresh adjudication.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Non-extension of Rule 6(5) benefits
The appellant contested the duty demand, interest, and penalty imposed by the adjudicating authority, citing the non-extension of Rule 6(5) benefits. The appellant claimed that if Rule 6(5) had been applied, they would have been entitled to a credit of ?78,038 for 2009-10 and ?1,08,402 for 2010-11. Additionally, it was argued that the application of Rule 6(3) could have reduced the duty liability significantly. The Tribunal acknowledged the importance of examining the documentary evidence related to the non-extension of Rule 6(5) benefits and deemed it necessary for a fresh adjudication by the original authority.

Issue 2: Application of sub-rule 3AA
The Tribunal deliberated on the applicability of sub-rule 3AA to the appellant's case, considering that the adjudication order was issued after the introduction of this sub-rule. Sub-rule 3AA allows a manufacturer or service provider who failed to exercise the option under sub-rule 3 to follow a specific procedure for payment, subject to the discretion of the competent authority. The Tribunal emphasized the need to analyze the applicability of sub-rule 3AA in the appellant's situation, hinting at its potential relevance in the fresh adjudication process.

Issue 3: Nature of business classification
Apart from the procedural aspects, the Tribunal also touched upon the nature of the appellant's business, particularly in relation to the definitions of trading and exemption categories. While not delving deeply into this issue, the Tribunal hinted at the relevance of clarifying the nature of the appellant's business during the fresh adjudication process, suggesting that it could be a point of consideration for the original adjudicating authority.

Issue 4: Remand for fresh adjudication
Ultimately, the Tribunal allowed the appeal and remanded the matter back to the original adjudicating authority for a fresh adjudication based on the observations made regarding the non-extension of Rule 6(5) benefits and the potential applicability of sub-rule 3AA. The decision to remand the case underscored the Tribunal's commitment to ensuring a thorough examination of the issues raised by the appellant, emphasizing the importance of proper adjudication based on the relevant legal provisions and factual considerations.

This comprehensive analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues addressed by the Tribunal and the subsequent decision to remand the case for further review, emphasizing the significance of procedural compliance and the correct application of relevant rules in tax matters.

← Previous Next →