2016 (8) TMI 241 - AT - Service Tax

Cenvat credit reversal - refund - 100% EOU same issues raised by subsequent SCN. - Held that - subsequent SCN is bad in law being repeat litigation of the issue already covered by the earlier SCN. The allegations brought forward by earlier SCN was not brought on record as a result of such investigation by subsequent SCN - impugned order set aside decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues: Denial of Cenvat credit, Interest, Penalty under Section 78

Denial of Cenvat Credit:
The appellant, a 100% EOU registered with the service tax Department for providing taxable services, availed Cenvat credit on inputs and input services received. Due to exporting output services, the appellant filed refund claims under Rule 5 of CCR. Show cause notices were issued proposing to deny part of the refund claim on certain input services and input services received from a specific entity. The appellant agreed to reverse the Cenvat credit related to invoices from that entity to expedite the refund process. Another show cause notice was issued later, proposing to disallow Cenvat credit on specific invoices due to missing registration numbers. The appellant responded stating non-receipt of relevant documents and prayed for dropping the show cause notice.

Interest and Penalty under Section 78:
The show cause notice was adjudicated, confirming the demand with interest and imposing a penalty under section 78 read with rule 15 (3) of the CCR. The appellant appealed to the Commissioner (Appeals), who confirmed the denial of credit with interest but reduced the penalty from 200% to 100%. The appellant, aggrieved by the decision, approached the Tribunal.

Analysis of the Judgment:
Upon hearing the parties and examining the records, the Tribunal found the show cause notice dated 19/3/13 to be flawed and repetitive. It was noted that the issue raised in this notice had already been addressed in earlier show cause notices, and the appellant had already reversed the amount in question. The subsequent notice lacked clarity and failed to provide any investigation results regarding the mentioned entity. The Tribunal deemed the notice as vague and a repetition of earlier litigated issues, thus ruling it as invalid. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal, emphasizing that the extension period of limitation was not applicable to the Revenue due to the repetitive nature of the show cause notice. The decision was made in favor of the appellant, granting consequential relief as per the law.