9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (12) TMI 601 - AT - Service TaxDenial of CENVAT Credit - GTA services - Imposition of penalty - Held that - Appellant has already paid the entire CENVAT Credit demand on GTA services on 16.07.2012. During the course of hearing, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Appellant fairly agreed that the interest on the irregularly taken credit may be payable. In view of the case law of Market Systems Ltd Vs CCE & ST Vadodara-II (2014 (6) TMI 33 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD), passed by the Bench, it is held that the interest on the in-admissible CENVAT Credit taken is payable by the Appellant. So far as the imposition of penalty upon the Appellant under Rule 15(4) of CENVAT Credit Rules 2004 is concerned, it is observed that there was a favourable case law with the Appellant in the form of Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal of Bangalore in the case of ABB Ltd Vs CCE & ST Bangalore (2009 (5) TMI 48 - CESTAT, BANGALORE) wherein it was held that the GTA services from the place of removal is admissible even after the date of amendment to CENVAT Credit Rules. This order passed by Larger Bench was set aside by Hon ble Karnataka High Court 2011 (3) TMI 248 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT only in the year 2011. Therefore, the Appellant had a bonafide belief that such CENVAT Credit taken is admissible. Accordingly, it is held that present case is not a fit case for imposition of penalty under Rule 15(4) of CENVAT Credit Rules 2004. - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues:
Demand of CENVAT Credit on GTA services availed by the Appellant from the place of removal; Imposition of penalty under Rule 15(4) of CENVAT Credit Rules 2004. Analysis: 1. The appeal was filed against the order passed by the First Appellate Authority regarding the demand of CENVAT Credit on GTA services. The Appellant argued citing the case of ABB Ltd Vs CCE & ST, Bangalore, where the Larger Bench held the credit to be admissible on GTA services from the place of removal. However, this decision was reversed by the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in 2011. The Appellant contended that they believed the credit was admissible based on prevailing rulings until 2011. The Appellant admitted that interest on the in-admissible credit might need to be paid. The period involved in the appeal was from October 2009 to July 2010, and the reversal of the decision was on October 16, 2012. 2. The Appellant also argued against the penalty imposed under Rule 15(4) of CENVAT Credit Rules 2004, stating that they were under a bonafide belief that the credit was admissible based on the earlier rulings. The Adjudicating authority had imposed the penalty based on the Appellant's utilization of the credit. 3. The Authorised Representative for the Revenue argued that the confirmation of CENVAT Credit and interest on GTA services up to the place of removal was correct, referencing the case law of Market Systems Vs CCE & ST Vadodara-II. The Representative highlighted specific paragraphs of the case law to support the argument that the Appellant was liable to pay the CENVAT Credit and interest. 4. After hearing both sides and examining the case records, the Tribunal noted that the Appellant had already paid the entire demand of CENVAT Credit on GTA services. The Appellant agreed during the hearing that interest on the irregularly taken credit might be payable. Citing the case law of Market Systems Ltd Vs CCE & ST Vadodara-II, the Tribunal held that the interest on the in-admissible CENVAT Credit was indeed payable by the Appellant. 5. Regarding the imposition of the penalty under Rule 15(4) of CENVAT Credit Rules 2004, the Tribunal considered the Appellant's bonafide belief based on the earlier rulings, including the Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal of Bangalore in the ABB Ltd case. The Tribunal noted that the Appellant had a reasonable belief in the admissibility of the credit, especially before the decision was reversed by the Karnataka High Court in 2011. Consequently, the Tribunal found that the penalty was not justified in this case and allowed the appeal to set aside the penalty. 6. In conclusion, based on the observations and legal principles, the Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the Appellant only to the extent of setting aside the penalty imposed under Rule 15(4) of CENVAT Credit Rules 2004.
|
