9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (11) TMI 381 - AT - Service TaxCENVAT credit - input services - renting of immovable property hired for their office premises - the appellant has rented the premises, part of which has gone as an input service to their own company and part of which is charged to sister companies because sister companies are not paying any rent - HELD THAT - There is no Rule under CENVAT Credit Rules 2004 under which against the same invoice part credit can be allowed and part denied if only part of input or input service is used towards the final product or service. The appeal needs to be allowed only on the ground that there is no scope in the CENVAT Credit Rules 2004 to partly allow and partly disallow credit on the same invoice - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues Involved:
1. Admissibility of CENVAT Credit on service tax paid for renting immovable property partially used by the assessee and partially by sister companies. 2. Appeal dismissed on grounds of time bar and condonation of delay. 3. Upholding of lower authority's decision by the first appellate authority. 4. Interpretation of CENVAT Credit Rules 2004 regarding partial utilization of input service. Analysis: Issue 1: Admissibility of CENVAT Credit on partially used immovable property: The appellant, a service tax registrant, rented a building's ground floor but only utilized a portion for their office, allowing the rest for free use by sister companies. The Revenue contended that the service tax paid on renting the property was not fully an input service for the appellant's output services. The department issued a show-cause notice for disallowing a specific amount of CENVAT Credit. The authority allowed credit for only 1/3rd of the amount, disallowing the rest, along with imposing penalties and interest. The appellant argued citing a similar case where full credit was allowed for services shared with other companies. The Tribunal found no provision in the CENVAT Credit Rules to partially allow credit on the same invoice. Consequently, the appeal was allowed based on the absence of such provisions. Issue 2: Appeal dismissal and remand: The appellant appealed before the first appellate authority, who dismissed it due to time bar and insufficient grounds for condonation of delay. The Tribunal, upon appeal, condoned the delay and remanded the matter to the first appellate authority for a decision on merits. Issue 3: Upholding lower authority's decision: The first appellate authority upheld the lower authority's decision, leading to the appellant's further appeal. The appellant argued for full CENVAT Credit based on a previous case, while the Revenue contended that only a proportionate credit should be allowed. The authority disallowed a portion of the credit, considering the shared usage of the rented premises by sister companies. Issue 4: Interpretation of CENVAT Credit Rules 2004: The Tribunal analyzed the absence of specific provisions in the CENVAT Credit Rules for partially allowing credit on the same invoice. It emphasized that fairness principles guided the decision in similar cases, where proportionate credit was allowed based on shared usage. The Tribunal ultimately allowed the appeal, highlighting the lack of provisions for partial credit disallowance in the rules. In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal based on the absence of provisions in the CENVAT Credit Rules to partially disallow credit on the same invoice, emphasizing the need for clarity in such cases.
|
