9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (4) TMI 434 - AT - Service TaxCENVAT Credit - input services - sludge/waste removal service - invoices not bearing registered address of the appellant and only having the address of the head office at Kolkata - actual use certificate not produced (for services received from Chhtrapati Engineering and Sai Engineering Works) - demand of service tax - tax paid under reverse charge mechanism (Sai Enterprises collected service tax on the 100% value and deposited the same to the government exchequer/double taxation) - expenses incurred on fee paid to various government department - suppression of facts or not - extended period of limitation. Denial of Cenvat credit on sludge/waste removal service - HELD THAT - The disposal of waste generated out of manufacturing is a statutory obligation of the appellant and violation of the same would attract penal consequences. This service has been held to be input service by the Tribunal in the case of COMMISSIONER OF C. EX. SERVICE TAX (LTU) VERSUS LUPIN LTD. 2012 (4) TMI 499 - CESTAT, MUMBAI wherein the Tribunal has held that transportation and clearance of waste is an activity of the appellant s manufacturing business. The service availed by the appellant is an integral part of the manufacturing process and hence the appellant is eligible for Cenvat credit. CENVAT Credit denial on the ground that the invoices not bearing registered address of the appellant and only having the address of the head office at Kolkata - HELD THAT - The services were availed in Baddi but inadvertently address of the head office was mentioned in the invoice. The Tribunal has been consistently holding that the Cenvat credit/substantial benefit cannot be denied on technical/procedural lapse as held by the Tribunal in the case of M/S RAJENDER KUMAR ASSOCIATESS VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX, DELHI-II 2020 (11) TMI 621 - CESTAT NEW DELHI and M/S ADBUR PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS CST, DELHI 2017 (5) TMI 101 - CESTAT NEW DELHI - thus, the appellant is entitled to Cenvat credit on the input service received from D.K.Chajjar Co. Denial of CENVAT Credit - stand of the department is that the said activity was used for building structure whereas the stand of the appellant is that these services were availed with regard to repair and maintenance of plant and machinery - HELD THAT - The appellant has not given any material to show or the certificate from the chartered engineer regarding the actual use of these services. Hence, the appellant is not entitled to avail Cenvat credit on the services received from Chhtrapati Engineering and Sai Engineering Works because the said the service is excluded from the definition of input service as provided under Rule 2 (l) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - Credit denied. Service availed from Sai Enterprises - Sai Enterprises collected service tax on the 100% value and deposited the same to the government exchequer - double taxation - HELD THAT - This issue has also been considered by the Tribunal in the case of M/S. MAHANADI COALFIELDS LIMITED VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CGST CX, ROURKELA COMMISSIONERATE 2020 (9) TMI 477 - CESTAT KOLKATA and MANDEV TUBES VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, VAPI 2009 (5) TMI 102 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD wherein it has been held that even if the tax is liable to be paid under RCM but the same is paid by the service provider, it was not open to the department to demand the same again from the assessee - demanding service tax from the appellant under reverse charge mechanism is not sustainable in law. Demand of service tax paid to legal consultancy services - HELD THAT - The same has been accepted by the appellant and amount of Rs.7,155/- has already been paid along with interest and penalty and the same has been appropriated by the original authority in their order. Demand of service tax under reverse charge mechanism on the expenses incurred on fee paid to various government department - HELD THAT - The issue is covered by the circular No.192/02/2016-ST dated 13.4.2016 and as per this circular the appellant is liable to service tax on this service. Moreover, the appellant has failed to explain as to why the fee was paid to the government department if not for some activity in return, as claimed by the appellant. Extended period of Limitation - HELD THAT - There is force in the appellant s contention and in view of law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of M/S. UNIWORTH TEXTILES LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE. RAIPUR 2013 (1) TMI 616 - SUPREME COURT - In absence of positive action, suppression of facts, wilful misstatement with intent to evade duty, the extended period cannot be invoked. The demand is confirmed is restricted to normal period only in the case of input service received from Chhtrapati Engineering and Sai Engineering Works used for building structure and also expenses incurred on fee to Govt. department. In the circumstances, penalty under section 78 and 77 of Finance Act, 1994 are dropped. Appeal is allowed by way of remand.
Issues Involved:
1. Denial of Cenvat credit on sludge/waste removal service. 2. Denial of Cenvat credit due to invoices not bearing the registered address. 3. Denial of Cenvat credit on services allegedly used for building structure. 4. Denial of Cenvat credit on manpower supply services. 5. Service tax liability on fees paid to government departments. 6. Invocation of the extended period for demand. Summary: 1. Denial of Cenvat Credit on Sludge/Waste Removal Service: The Tribunal held that the disposal of waste generated from manufacturing is a statutory obligation and an integral part of the manufacturing process. The service availed for waste disposal qualifies as input service, making the appellant eligible for Cenvat credit. This decision aligns with the precedent set in CCE & ST vs. Lupin Limited. 2. Denial of Cenvat Credit Due to Invoices Not Bearing Registered Address: The Tribunal found that services were availed in Baddi, but the invoices mistakenly mentioned the head office address in Kolkata. It was held that Cenvat credit cannot be denied on such technical/procedural lapses, as supported by decisions in Rajender Kumar & Associates vs. CST, Delhi-II and Abdur Pvt. Ltd. vs. CST, Delhi. 3. Denial of Cenvat Credit on Services Allegedly Used for Building Structure: The Tribunal noted that the appellant failed to provide material evidence or a certificate from a chartered engineer to clarify the actual use of services from Chhtrapati Engineering and Sai Engineering Works. Consequently, Cenvat credit was denied for these services, as they are excluded from the definition of input service under Rule 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. 4. Denial of Cenvat Credit on Manpower Supply Services: The Tribunal observed that Sai Enterprises collected and deposited service tax on the full value of services. Demanding service tax again from the appellant would result in double taxation. This stance is supported by the Tribunal's decisions in Mahanadi Coalfield Ltd. and Mandev Tubes. Hence, the demand for service tax under reverse charge mechanism was not sustainable. 5. Service Tax Liability on Fees Paid to Government Departments: The Tribunal held that the appellant is liable to pay service tax on fees paid to government departments as per circular No.192/02/2016-ST dated 13.4.2016. The appellant failed to justify the payment of fees without receiving any service in return. 6. Invocation of the Extended Period for Demand: The Tribunal found that the extended period could not be invoked in the absence of suppression, misstatement, or intent to evade duty/tax. This view is consistent with the Apex Court's decision in Uniworth Textile Limited vs. CCE, Raipur and other Tribunal judgments. Thus, the demand was restricted to the normal period only for input services received from Chhtrapati Engineering and Sai Engineering Works and expenses incurred on fees to government departments. Penalties under sections 78 and 77 of the Finance Act, 1994 were dropped. Conclusion: The appeal was allowed by way of remand to the original authority to quantify the duty for the normal period. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.
|
