9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (3) TMI 405 - AT - Service TaxInvocation of Extended period of Limitation - non-payment of service tax under RCM on transportation charges - availability of CENVAT Credit - Revenue neutrality - HELD THAT - The appellant was required to pay service tax on transportation services under Reverse Charge Mechanism (RCM). If the said charges would have been paid by the appellant, the same were entitled to take the cenvat credit to the appellant. Therefore, it is a situation of revenue neutrality as the appellant himself has to take the credit of the same. In that circumstances, a show-cause notice issued to the appellant on 06.04.2016 for the period October, 2012 to March, 2013, is barred by limitation as held by this Tribunal in the case of M/S ASMITHA MICROFIN LTD VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS CENTRAL EXCISE SERVICE TAX, HYDERABAD-III COMMISSIONERATE 2019 (9) TMI 122 - CESTAT HYDERABAD , wherein this Tribunal has held It has been well settled at the hands of the Apex Court in the case of JET AIRWAYS (INDIA) LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER 2018 (1) TMI 210 - SC ORDER that extended period of limitation cannot be invoked in revenue neutral cases. Therefore, the entire demand is hit by limitation and therefore needs to be set aside. Therefore, following the precedent decision of the decision of this Tribunal, it is held that the extended period of limitation is not sustainable in this case - the impugned order set aside - appeal allowed.
Issues involved: Appeal against confirmation of service tax demand invoking extended period of limitation.
Summary: The appellant, engaged in providing Business Auxiliary Service and Goods Transport Agency Service, appealed against the confirmation of service tax demand for not paying due service tax during 2012-13 and 2013-14. The appellant argued that they had paid service tax on output services but not under Reverse Charge Mechanism (RCM) on transportation charges, leading to a revenue-neutral situation. Citing a precedent, the appellant contended that demand under RCM does not warrant extended period of limitation. The Revenue supported the impugned order. The Tribunal found that the appellant should have paid service tax on transportation services under RCM to claim cenvat credit, resulting in revenue neutrality. Relying on a previous ruling, the Tribunal held that the demand for the period in question was hit by limitation due to revenue neutrality, setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal with consequential relief.
|
