2015 (11) TMI 724 - AT - Service Tax

CENVAT Credit - Renting of immovable property and Leasing of vacant land - Held that - Entire case of the Revenue proceeds on the assumption that a common cenvatable account has been maintained whereas the appellants have contended that they have maintained separate account for the exempted and taxable final services. This fact requires verification. In some of the cases, common input services have been utilized like telephone services, we agree with the learned advocate that in terms of various decisions of the Tribunal segregation of the credit relatable to the exempted final services and reversal of the same to that extent would meet the requirement of law. In this connection, reliance can be placed on Tribunal s decision in the case of Orion Appliances Ltd. vs. CST, Ahmedabad 2010 (5) TMI 85 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD and BHEL-GE Turbine Service Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, Hyderabad 2009 (12) TMI 407 - CESTAT, BANGALORE - Matter remanded back - Impugned order is set aside - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Identification of taxable and exempt services for availing CENVAT credit.

Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Bangalore involved the issue of availing CENVAT credit for services falling under 'renting of immovable property' and 'leasing of vacant land' by an appellant engaged in providing port services. The appellant had been paying service tax on port services and utilizing common input services for tax payment. The Revenue raised demands against the appellant, proposing to restrict the credit to 20% under Rule 6 and Rule 6(3)(c) of the CENVAT Credit Rules due to lack of separate accounts for exempted and taxable services.

The Tribunal analyzed Rule 6(2) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, which mandates separate accounts for inputs and input services for dutiable and exempted products. The appellant contended that they maintained separate accounts for exempted and dutiable final services but might have used common input services for both types of services. The appellant offered to reverse proportionate credit for common services, rendering Rule 6(2) and 6(3) inapplicable.

The Revenue argued that even if the services were not taxable before specific dates, they should be considered exempted services under section 2(e) of the CENVAT Credit Rules. The Revenue insisted on restricting credit to 20% as per Rule 6(2) and Rule 6(3) due to the absence of separate cenvatable accounts.

The Tribunal noted the discrepancy between the Revenue's assumption of a common cenvatable account and the appellant's claim of maintaining separate accounts. Acknowledging the use of common input services like telephone services, the Tribunal agreed with the appellant that segregating credit for exempted services and reversing it would comply with the law. The Tribunal referred to previous decisions supporting this approach.

Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for verification by the original adjudicating authority. The Asst. Commissioner was tasked with re-deciding the segregation of CENVAT credit for services based on the Tribunal's referenced decisions. All the appeals were disposed of accordingly.