2019 (10) TMI 319 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT Credit - capital goods / inputs - construction of building structure - used in relation to setting up' - period from April 2013 to March 2015 - issue already decided by Tribunal - HELD THAT - On the same services, the appellant had filed the appeal which was allowed by the Tribunal in UNI ABEX ALLOY PRODUCTS VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX, BELAGAVI COMMISSIONERATE 2019 (2) TMI 569 - CESTAT BANGALORE - On the same services, another SCN was issued by the Division Officer based on the Range Officer observation. Since this Tribunal has already allowed the appeal by the appellant on the same services and the Revenue seeks to demand service tax twice on the same services which is not permitted under law. Impugned order set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against disallowance of CENVAT credit on goods not falling under the category of capital goods/inputs
- Sustainability of the impugned order passed by the Commissioner(Appeals)
- Challenge of demand raised by the Deputy Commissioner, Audit Circle, Belgaum
- Disallowance of service tax credit for setting up of 33KVA twice
- Defense of the impugned order by the Revenue

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed against the disallowance of CENVAT credit on goods not meeting the criteria of capital goods/inputs as per the CENVAT credit Rules, 2004. The Assistant Commissioner disallowed CENVAT credit of ?8,81,143/- along with interest and penalties. The Commissioner(Appeals) upheld the Order-in-Original for a demand of ?3,18,833/- along with interest and penalty.

2. The sustainability of the impugned order was questioned by the appellant, arguing that it was passed without proper appreciation of facts and law. The appellant highlighted that a similar demand was raised previously, which was challenged before the CESTAT and allowed in favor of the appellant. The same credit was disallowed again based on observations by different officers, leading to a double disallowance of service tax credit for setting up of 33KVA.

3. The Deputy Commissioner, Audit Circle, Belgaum raised a demand on the premise that certain elements were omitted from the definition, resulting in a demand of ?3,38,582/-. The appellant appealed this demand, which was initially upheld by the Commissioner but later set aside by the CESTAT. The Tribunal found that the Revenue sought to demand service tax twice on the same services, which is impermissible under the law.

4. The defense of the impugned order was presented by the Revenue during the proceedings. However, after considering the submissions from both sides and reviewing the material on record, the Tribunal found that the appellant had already succeeded in a previous appeal regarding the same services. As demanding service tax twice on the same services is not allowed by law, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal of the appellant was allowed.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal, led by HON'BLE MR. S.S GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER, overturned the impugned order passed by the Commissioner(Appeals) in favor of the appellant. The judgment highlighted the impermissibility of demanding service tax twice on the same services and emphasized the importance of adhering to legal principles and precedents in such matters.