9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (7) TMI 1421 - AT - Service TaxAvailing benefit of Abatement of Service Tax and Cenvat Credit - Air Travel Agency Service - Rail Travel Service - Tour Operator - Cab Operator booking - N/N. 1/2006 ST dated 01.03.2006 - HELD THAT - On an identical issue in the appellant s own case for the subsequent period, this Tribunal FCM TRAVEL SOLUTIONS (INDIA) PVT LTD VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CUSTOMS AND SERVICE TAX MYSORE 2017 (10) TMI 802 - CESTAT BANGALORE has remanded the case back to the original authority for the purpose of verifying whether the appellants have reversed the proportionate credit and if they have reversed, extend the benefit of the decision of this Tribunal relied upon by them. The present appeal is also allowed by way of remand.
Issues:
1. Appeal against rejection of abatement claimed and demand of service tax. 2. Availment of cenvat credit on input services contrary to conditions. 3. Reversal of credit on common input services. 4. Benefit of abatement under Notification No. 1/2006 ST. Analysis: Issue 1: Appeal against rejection of abatement claimed and demand of service tax The appeal was directed against the order rejecting the abatement claimed and demanding service tax. The appellants, registered service providers in various categories, were found to have wrongly availed the benefit of abatement of taxable service. The show-cause notice proposed to reject the abatement claimed and demand service tax for the specified period. The original authority held that the appellants had availed cenvat credit on input services, leading to the rejection of the appeal by the Commissioner. Issue 2: Availment of cenvat credit on input services contrary to conditions The appellants were observed to have availed cenvat credit of service tax paid on input services, along with abatement of the value of taxable service, contrary to the conditions specified in Notification No. 1/2006 ST. The appellants argued that they did not take credit on input services exclusively used for certain services and reversed the credit on common input services like Security Service, Courier Service, and Telephone Service. They contended that it was impractical to maintain separate accounts for each service. Issue 3: Reversal of credit on common input services The appellant submitted that the credit attributable to the services on which abatement was claimed had been reversed, implying that no credit was taken on those services. Citing precedents, they argued that the benefit of abatement notification should not be denied in such circumstances. The Tribunal noted similar decisions in the appellant's own cases for subsequent periods where the matter was remanded to verify if the credit was reversed, extending the benefit of abatement if verified. Issue 4: Benefit of abatement under Notification No. 1/2006 ST The Tribunal, considering the submissions and precedents in the appellant's own cases, allowed the appeal by way of remand. It was observed that the appellants had already reversed the proportionate credit attributable to certain services, entitling them to the benefit of abatement under Notification No. 1/2006. The Tribunal followed the same rationale as in previous decisions and remanded the case back to the original authority for verification, allowing the appeal and disposing of the stay application. In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal by way of remand, following the precedent set in the appellant's own cases for subsequent periods. The decision highlighted the importance of verifying the reversal of credit on specific services to determine the eligibility for the benefit of abatement under the relevant notification.
|
