Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2024 (4) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2024 (4) TMI 674 - AT - Service Tax


Issues involved: Service tax demand for non-payment of amount equivalent to 6% on the value of exempted services under Rule 6 (3) (i) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.

The judgment pertains to a Departmental appeal against an Order-in-Appeal setting aside a service tax demand for alleged non-payment of the required amount on exempted services. The demand was based on the appellant's failure to maintain a separate account for input services used for exempted services, as per Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The original authority confirmed the demand, which was subsequently appealed by the assessee and allowed by the Commissioner (Appeals), leading to the Department's appeal before the Tribunal.

During the proceedings, the Authorized Representative for the Department acknowledged that the issue had been decided in favor of the Assessee-Respondent in their own case. The Department argued that a previous decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay had been wrongly ignored. On the other hand, the Respondent-Assessee's counsel highlighted that in previous cases, demands for similar issues had been settled or set aside by the Department itself, indicating that the present appeal for the recovery of the amount for a specific period should be dismissed based on judicial discipline.

The Tribunal observed that the appellant had deposited the entire Cenvat credit, whether for taxable or exempted services, before the issuance of show cause notices, which had been appropriated by the authorities. Citing legal precedent, including a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Tribunal emphasized that if credit originally availed is reversed subsequently, it would be as if no credit had been availed. The Tribunal also noted that the Commissioner (Appeals) had considered relevant decisions of the Tribunal and the Hon'ble Madras High Court based on the Supreme Court's decision.

In light of the above discussion and the settled legal position, including previous Tribunal decisions, the Tribunal upheld the order under challenge, dismissing the Department's appeal.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates