9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (10) TMI 677 - AT - Service TaxCENVAT Credit - reverse charge mechanism - It appeared to Revenue that the said amount of cenvat credit amounting to ₹ 49,91,539/- is not admissible to appellant, as cenvat credit is admissible only when such input service/ inputs are used in providing any output service - HELD THAT - The appellant is entitled to input service credit of ₹ 49,91,591/- in dispute. All the services in question are eligible input services for rendering of output services. There is no dispute as regards receipt of any of the input services. Demand of short paid service Tax - GTA service - recipient of service - non-payment of service tax for renting of immovable property service for the period April, 2011 to September, 2011 - HELD THAT - The said amount is also not tenable as the said demand was prima facie raised under the impression that the appellant is not entitled to cenvat credit of ₹ 49,91,539/-. Further, we find that the appellant have deposited the service tax as per their calculation and is also evident from the calculation chart and the payment challans brought on record vide miscellaneous application, which was earlier allowed vide order dated 03.12.2019 - further, Revenue have not pleaded that the VCES application filed by the appellant on 24.12.2013 for tax dues upto December, 2012 have been rejected. Even otherwise the appellant have deposited all the taxes, as is evident. The appellant is directed to file a copy of the calculation chart alongwith evidence of payment of service tax before the adjudicating authority for verification. If any amount is found to be short paid, the same shall be deposited on being so pointed out by the adjudicating authority. The excess amount deposited, if any, shall be adjusted in accordance with law - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues Involved:
1. Admissibility of Cenvat Credit. 2. Non-payment of Service Tax for Renting of Immovable Property. 3. Calculation and Payment of Service Tax under VCES, 2013. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Admissibility of Cenvat Credit: The appellant, M/s Entertainment World Developers Pvt. Limited, set up a shopping mall cum entertainment world known as 'Treasure Island' and availed input service credit for various services to render output services. The revenue found discrepancies in the appellant's service tax liability for GTA as a recipient of service, discharged in cash, and the utilization of Cenvat credit for discharging service tax. The revenue alleged non-admissibility of Cenvat credit amounting to ?49,91,539/- as it appeared the input services were not used for providing output services. The appellant maintained proper Cenvat credit registers and submitted details of input services received, such as Advertisement and Business Promotion, Bank Charges, Security Services, etc. The tribunal found the appellant entitled to the disputed Cenvat credit, noting that all services in question were eligible input services for rendering output services. 2. Non-payment of Service Tax for Renting of Immovable Property: The revenue alleged non-payment of service tax amounting to ?66,48,166/- for renting of immovable property services for the period April 2011 to September 2011. The appellant contended that the non-payment was due to ongoing litigation regarding the levy of service tax on renting of immovable property, which was settled in favor of the revenue only after the re-introduction of the service tax under Section 65(105)(zzzz) of the Finance Act, 1994. The appellant also filed a declaration under VCES, 2013 for tax dues, including the disputed amount. The tribunal found the demand untenable as the appellant had deposited the service tax as per their calculation and provided evidence of payment through challans. 3. Calculation and Payment of Service Tax under VCES, 2013: The appellant filed a declaration under VCES, 2013 for tax dues of ?83,09,571/- for the period April 2011 to December 2012, which included the disputed amount of ?66,48,166/-. The tribunal noted that the revenue did not reject the VCES application and the appellant had deposited all taxes as evident from the calculation chart and payment challans. The tribunal directed the adjudicating authority to verify the challans and calculations furnished by the appellant and allowed the appeal with consequential benefits. If any amount was found short-paid, it was to be deposited upon being pointed out by the adjudicating authority, and any excess amount deposited was to be adjusted in accordance with the law. Conclusion: The tribunal allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order, and directed the adjudicating authority to verify the payment of service tax along with the calculations provided by the appellant. The appellant was instructed to file the necessary documents for verification, and any short-paid amount was to be deposited as required. The appeal was allowed with consequential benefits.
|
