2018 (10) TMI 1417 - AT - Service Tax

CENVAT Credit - input services - Chartered Accountants Service - Repairs and Maintenance and AMC service - Advertisement and Membership service - Travelling Services - Held that - On the same services this tribunal has already taken a decision in the appellant s own case in M/s Neutral Glass & Allied Industries Pvt Ltd Versus C.C.E. & S.T. Surat - II 2017 (7) TMI 1239 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD , where except the CENVAT credit on various general insurance the credit on all other services have been allowed. General insurance services - Held that - Ld. C.A. has fairly agreed that those general insurance services are not admissible to them. Hence, they are not contesting for an amount of ₹ 4,15,822/-. Accordingly, the demand of ₹ 4,15,822/- is upheld. Demand of Interest - Held that - The appellant have not utilized the credit of ₹ 4,15,822/- as they have maintained the credit balance approx. ₹ 40 lakhs during the relevant period - In terms of amended rule 14 of CCR, 2004 with effect from 01/04/2012, the interest is chargeable only in case the assessee avail and utilize the credit - demand of interest not sustainable. Penalty - Held that - There is no suppression of fact or malafide intention on part of the appellant. Moreover, even though services on which the appellant have conceded the demand, the issue appears to be debatable - penalty set aside. Appeal allowed in part.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Entitlement to CENVAT credit on various services including renting of immovable property, chartered accountants service, repairs and maintenance, advertisement, and traveling services.

Analysis:
1. The appellant sought CENVAT credit on several services, acknowledging in their own case that certain general insurance services were not admissible. The appellant argued against the demand for interest due to maintaining a credit balance and proposed no penalty imposition due to lack of malafide intention and absence of suppression of facts.

2. The Revenue representative reiterated the findings of the impugned order, supporting the denial of credit for certain services as per the order under appeal.

3. The Tribunal referenced a previous decision in the appellant's case, where credit on various services was allowed except for specific general insurance services. The Tribunal upheld the denial of credit for the contested general insurance services, amounting to ?4,15,822, but set aside the demand for interest as the credit was not utilized. The Tribunal also waived the penalty due to the absence of malafide intention and the debatable nature of the issue.

4. The Tribunal examined the previous order and concurred that except for general insurance services, credit for all other services was permissible. The appellant agreed that the general insurance services were not admissible, leading to the non-contestation of the demand amounting to ?4,15,822. Consequently, the demand was upheld, but the interest demand was set aside as the credit was not utilized. The Tribunal also waived the penalty considering the lack of suppression of facts or malafide intention and the debatable nature of the issue.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the issues, arguments presented by both parties, the Tribunal's decision based on precedent and legal provisions, and the outcome regarding the entitlement to CENVAT credit on various services.