9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (4) TMI 951 - AT - Service TaxCENVAT credit - inputs - input services - Held that - the steel, cement and such other items have been used to construct the building which is used by appellant to provide the output service of Renting of Immovable Property. Therefore, the credit availed on inputs by appellant prior to 01.04.2011 is eligible for credit - The credit availed on cement, steel etc., as inputs which are used for construction of building after 01.04.2011 is not admissible as per definition of inputs w.e.f. 01.04.2011. From the above, the credit availed on inputs by appellant after 01.04.2011 is not eligible for credit. Input services - The department has denied credit alleging that all these services are for setting up of premises of the appellant and therefore not admissible - It is the case of appellant that the input services were not availed for setting up of the premises, but the services were availed only for modernization and renovation of the premises - Held that - The period involved in this issue is after 01.04.2011 only. The definition of input services w.e.f. from 01.04.2011 also underwent amendment, whereby the services relating to setting up of factory/premises of provider of output service was deleted from the definition - From the table itself it is clear that the services are not per se for construction of building or setting up of premises and these are merely renovation/modernization works. The services in the table show that these are construction services for laying the flooring, Erection of Machinery, Electric Installation Works, Single Leaf Door, Installation Boom Barriers, Electrical Consultancy Charges. Since these services would fall within the category of modernization, renovation services which come within the inclusive part of the definition of input services, the services are eligible for credit. Extended period of limitation - credit availed on inputs after 01.04.2011 - Held that - the eligibility of credit was interpretational issue, and appellants were under bonafide belief that credit is admissible while availing the credit - there is no evidence to establish that appellant had availed the irregular credit on inputs after 01.04.2011 by suppression of facts with an intention to evade payment of duty - the extended period is not invokable. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of credit on inputs. 2. Disallowance of credit on input services. 3. Applicability of the amendment to the definition of inputs. 4. Time-barred nature of the Show Cause Notice. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Disallowance of Credit on Inputs: The appellant contested the disallowance of credit on inputs such as iron and steel, cement, ready mix concrete, etc., used in the construction of premises leased out for providing Renting of Immovable Property Service. The appellant argued that the definition of inputs prior to 01.04.2011 allowed credit for these items as they were used for providing output services. The Department, however, relied on an amendment effective from 07.07.2009 and the judgment in Vandana Global Ltd. to deny the credit, asserting that the amendment applied to both manufacturers and service providers. The Tribunal found that the amendment and related judgments applied only to manufacturers. Therefore, credit availed on inputs prior to 01.04.2011 was deemed eligible. However, for inputs availed after 01.04.2011, the Tribunal upheld the disallowance as the definition of inputs had changed to exclude goods used for construction. 2. Disallowance of Credit on Input Services: The appellant argued that the services in question were availed for modernization and renovation, not for setting up the premises. The Department had disallowed credit on the grounds that these services were for setting up the premises, which was excluded from the definition of input services post-01.04.2011. The Tribunal examined the nature of the services, which included laying charges for flooring, erection of machinery, electrical installation works, etc., and concluded that these were indeed for modernization and renovation. Hence, the credit on input services was deemed eligible. 3. Applicability of the Amendment to the Definition of Inputs: The Tribunal scrutinized the definition of inputs before and after 01.04.2011. It concluded that the Explanation-2 introduced on 07.07.2009 applied only to manufacturers and not to service providers. The Tribunal also cited the judgment in Mundra Ports & Special Economic Zone Ltd., which clarified that the amendment did not have retrospective application. Consequently, the credit on inputs availed prior to 01.04.2011 was upheld as eligible, while credit availed post-01.04.2011 was disallowed. 4. Time-Barred Nature of the Show Cause Notice: The appellant contended that the Show Cause Notice issued on 22.04.2014 for the period October 2008 to March 2012 was time-barred. The appellant had disclosed the credit details in regular returns, and the majority of the credit was allowed by the Commissioner, indicating an interpretational issue rather than suppression of facts. The Tribunal agreed, noting that the Department used the appellant's returns to issue the notice and found no evidence of intent to evade duty. Hence, the notice was deemed time-barred. Conclusion: - The credit availed on inputs before 01.04.2011 was set aside on merits. - The credit availed on inputs after 01.04.2011 was set aside as time-barred. - The credit availed on input services was entirely set aside. The appeal was allowed with consequential reliefs.
|
