2017 (3) TMI 248 - AT - Service Tax

Interest liability - the credit of the Cenvat amount ought to have been adjusted from the month of August, 2005 onwards as shown and reflected in their ST-3 Returns - whether the appellant is required to pay interest? - Held that - reliance placed in the case of Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai Vs. Toyo Engineering Corpn. Ltd. 2014 (10) TMI 475 - CESTAT MUMBAI , where it was held that merely because the credit is available in the books of account does not mean that the tax has been paid. Therefore, the liability to pay interest has to be computed from the due date of payment of tax to the actual date of payment - appeal rejected - decided against appellant.

Issues:
Calculation mistake rectification, interest amount calculation, date of delay calculation, utilization of Cenvat Credit, interest on Service Tax, delay in payment of tax, liability to pay statutory interest, appeal dismissal, High Court remand, adjournment requests, reliance on precedent.

Calculation Mistake Rectification:
The Tribunal had remanded the matter to the original authority for rectification of calculation mistakes and calculation of interest amount. The Ld. Commissioner rectified the calculation mistake in the de novo order dated June 20, 2008, and calculated the interest liability. The appellant challenged the order, claiming the Commissioner erred in calculating the date of delay, arguing for adjustment of Cenvat Credit from August 2005 onwards. The appellant contended that interest is payable on demand of Service Tax in cash payment only. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal in 2009.

Interest Amount Calculation:
The Ld. Commissioner rectified the calculation mistake and calculated the interest liability in the impugned order. The appellant challenged the order, claiming the Commissioner erred in calculating the date of delay and the utilization of Cenvat Credit. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, leading to further litigation.

Date of Delay Calculation:
The appellant argued that the Ld. Commissioner erred in calculating the date of delay, contending for adjustment of Cenvat Credit from August 2005 onwards. The appellant claimed that interest should be payable on demand of Service Tax in cash payment only. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, leading to subsequent litigation.

Utilization of Cenvat Credit:
The appellant contended that the Commissioner failed to examine the correctness of the date of utilization of Cenvat Credit. The appellant claimed that the credit of the Cenvat amount should have been adjusted from August 2005 onwards as reflected in their ST-3 Returns. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, leading to further litigation.

Interest on Service Tax:
The Tribunal confirmed the demand of tax and interest, leading to a statutory interest payment by the appellant. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal due to a delay in payment of tax, affirming the liability to pay statutory interest. The High Court later set aside the Tribunal's order, leading to a fresh decision.

Delay in Payment of Tax:
The appellant faced a delay in payment of tax, resulting in the liability to pay statutory interest as confirmed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal due to the delay in tax payment, leading to further litigation and a subsequent fresh decision by the High Court.

Liability to Pay Statutory Interest:
The Tribunal confirmed the liability of the appellant to pay statutory interest due to a delay in tax payment. The appeal was dismissed, and the matter was remanded by the High Court for a fresh decision in accordance with the law.

Appeal Dismissal:
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant challenging the order of the Ld. Commissioner regarding the calculation mistake rectification and interest amount calculation. The appellant's claims regarding the date of delay calculation and utilization of Cenvat Credit were not upheld by the Tribunal.

High Court Remand:
The High Court set aside the Tribunal's order and remanded the matter for a fresh decision in accordance with the law. This led to the third round of litigation before the Tribunal, with multiple adjournment requests and hearings.

Adjournment Requests:
Multiple adjournment requests were made during the litigation process by both the Appellant and the Revenue, leading to delays in the proceedings. The case was adjourned several times due to various reasons, including requests by the Appellant and the Revenue, as well as instances where none appeared on behalf of the Appellant.

Reliance on Precedent:
The Ld. A.R. relied on a precedent case where it was held that the liability to pay interest has to be computed from the due date of payment of tax to the actual date of payment. The case emphasized that the availability of credit in the books of account does not equate to the tax being paid. Based on this precedent, the appeal filed by the appellant was rejected.

← Previous Next →