9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (3) TMI 1450 - AT - Central ExciseInput service credit - outdoor catering service provided by the canteen contractor to the employees - wilful suppression of facts - penalty - Held that - there is a positive act on the part of the appellant as they went on collecting the charges from the employees and also availing the Cenvat Credit in respect of the same - The burden of taking Cenvat Credit properly has been cast on the assessee under CCR, 2004 and the same was not discharged properly. In such a situation, the extended period can be invoked. As for the penalty imposed on the appellants, the period involved in these SCN is from April, 2006 to March, 2008 and April, 2008 to December, 2008. The penalty has been proposed u/r 15 read with Section 11 AC in the first SCN and u/r 15(3) for second SCN. As rightly pointed out by the Ld. Advocate, Rule 15(1) and 15(2) ibid are not applicable in their case as the same pertain to inputs and capital goods. Rule 15 (4) of the credit Rules applies to provider or output services. Hence, the appellants are liable to penalty u/r 15 (3) of the CCR. Penalty is therefore, reduced to ₹ 4000/- i.e. ₹ 2000/- each. Appeal allowed - decided partly in favor of assessee.
Issues:
1. Disallowance of input service credit on outdoor catering services. 2. Time limitation for demand raised by the Revenue. 3. Imposition of penalty under Rule 15 of CCR, 2004. Issue 1: Disallowance of input service credit on outdoor catering services: The appellants claimed input service credit for outdoor catering services provided by the canteen contractor to their employees. The adjudicating authority disallowed a portion of the credit, alleging that the appellants had charged amounts from their employees but had not recovered the cost of catering services. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the disallowance, leading to an appeal. The appellants argued that they were entitled to the credit based on legal precedents, including the judgment in CCE, Nagpur vs. Ultratech Cements Ltd. The tribunal agreed with the appellants, citing settled legal positions and allowed the input service credit of the contested amount. Issue 2: Time limitation for demand raised by the Revenue: The appellants contended that the demand for the period April 2006 to November 2007 was time-barred as the show cause notice was issued on 23.12.2008. They argued that there was no suppression on their part, and they believed in good faith that the cenvat credit on outdoor catering services was eligible. However, the tribunal found that the extended period could be invoked due to the appellants' actions of collecting charges from employees and availing cenvat credit without proper discharge of responsibilities. The tribunal upheld the invocation of the extended period. Issue 3: Imposition of penalty under Rule 15 of CCR, 2004: The penalty was proposed under Rule 15 read with Section 11AC in the first show cause notice and under Rule 15(3) in the second notice. The appellants argued that Rule 15(1) and 15(2) did not apply to them as those rules pertained to inputs and capital goods. The tribunal agreed, reducing the penalty to Rs. 4000/- (Rs. 2000/- each for each show cause notice) under Rule 15(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules. The penalty was adjusted accordingly, and the appeal was disposed of in the appellants' favor. This detailed analysis of the judgment provides insights into the issues of disallowance of input service credit, time limitation for demand, and imposition of penalty under Rule 15 of CCR, 2004, as addressed by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT CHANDIGARH.
|
