9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (4) TMI 10 - AT - Service TaxExtended period of limitation - PSU - CENVAT Credit - input services - credit denied holding that the cenvat credit was taken before making the payment of the same - Rule 4(7) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - HELD THAT - There is no restriction for availment of cenvat credit. In that circumstances, the appellant is entitled to take the cenvat credit as held by this Tribunal in the case of M/S MUNJAL SHOWA LTD. VERSUS C.C.E., DELHI-III, GURGAON 2018 (12) TMI 84 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH . It is found that at the most the appellant is liable to pay interest in the intervening period, but whole of the demand has been raised by invoking extended period of limitation as the appellant being a Public Sector Undertaking owned by the State Government, the element of suppression of facts and malafide intention for extending period of limitation is not invokable. Further the demand of interest has been raised by invoking extending period of limitation is also not invokable as held by this Tribunal in the case of M/s Munjal Showa Limited. The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed
Issues Involved: Appeal against denial of cenvat credit for service tax paid on input services before payment.
Facts of the Case: The appellant, a manufacturer of excisable goods, availed cenvat credit on input and input services. The appellant was also registered as an input service distributor for distributing service tax credit to its manufacturing facility. A show-cause notice alleged that the appellant availed cenvat credit for input services before payment, violating Rule 4(7) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The proceedings were initiated, dropped by the adjudicating authority, but confirmed by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals). Appellant's Argument: The appellant's counsel argued that the issue was covered by a previous Tribunal decision and that the demand was time-barred as the notice was issued after the period in question. It was emphasized that there was no malafide intention as the appellant was a State Government Undertaking. Revenue's Position: The Revenue's representative reiterated the findings of the impugned order. Tribunal's Decision: The Tribunal deliberated on whether the appellant was entitled to cenvat credit before payment under Rule 4(7) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. It was concluded that there was no restriction on availing cenvat credit, and the appellant was entitled to do so, citing a previous Tribunal decision. The Tribunal also noted that interest could be payable for the intervening period, but the demand raised under an extended period of limitation was not applicable to a State Government Undertaking. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with any consequential relief. Note: Separate judgments were not delivered by the judges.
|
