2014 (11) TMI 40 - AT - Service Tax

CENVAT Credit - Extended period of limitation - Malafide intention - Suppression of facts - Held that - The assessee company was in continuous correspondence with the Superintendent of Central Excise - Facts of the case would clearly show that there was no intention to avail wrong credit or evade duty and there was no need for issue of show-cause notice and imposition of penalty in this case at all. We do not want to waste further time since we consider that sufficient time has already been wasted by the authorities in the Revenue department on this issue in view of the decision of the Hon ble High Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Bangalore Vs. Adecco Flexione Workforce Solutions Ltd. 2011 (9) TMI 114 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT - Accordingly penalty is set aside - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Application of CENVAT credit on service tax for wind turbine generators, Reversal of CENVAT credit, Imposition of penalty without intention to avail wrong credit or evade duty.

Analysis:

1. Application of CENVAT credit on service tax for wind turbine generators:
The appellant company, engaged in the melting of pig iron and steel scrap, decided to install a wind turbine generator (WTG) for power generation. The company contracted with a leading manufacturer for the installation of a 1.5 MW WTG for captive consumption. The appellant sought to include the WTG premises under the central excise license to utilize the service tax paid as CENVAT credit. The company took credit for service tax paid on various services related to the WTG installation, amounting to Rs. 13,80,778. The Superintendent of Central Excise later deemed this credit inadmissible, leading to a demand for reversal or payment of the credit.

2. Reversal of CENVAT credit:
Following the Superintendent's directive, the appellant reversed the CENVAT credit taken on the WTG service and paid the interest amount of Rs. 74,751 through PLA. The reversal of the credit and payment of interest were confirmed through various correspondences and documents submitted by the appellant. Despite complying with the reversal and interest payment, penalty proceedings were initiated against the appellant, resulting in the imposition of a penalty of Rs. 65,000.

3. Imposition of penalty without intention to avail wrong credit or evade duty:
The Tribunal, in its judgment, noted that there was no intention on the part of the appellant to avail wrong credit or evade duty. The Tribunal opined that the facts of the case clearly demonstrated that there was no need for the issuance of a show-cause notice or imposition of penalty. Citing a decision of the Hon'ble High Court in a similar case, the Tribunal set aside the penalty, emphasizing that authorities in the Revenue department had already spent sufficient time on the issue.

In conclusion, the Tribunal found that the appellant had acted in good faith regarding the utilization of CENVAT credit on service tax for the WTG installation. The judgment highlighted the lack of intent to evade duty or avail incorrect credit, leading to the setting aside of the penalty imposed on the appellant.