9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (6) TMI 1490 - AT - Service TaxCENVAT Credit - various input services used in providing taxable and exempted output services - non-maintenance of separate records - Rule 6(3A) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - Held that - The issue is covered by the judgment of Hon ble Madras High Court in the case of COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE VERSUS GOYAL PROTEINS LTD. 2014 (2) TMI 1321 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT , where it was held that the assessee, having accepted before the Tribunal to reverse the Cenvat credit as recorded by the Tribunal as regards reversal of the amount involved under such a situation, the High Court held that when the matter has been remanded back to the Adjudicating Authority to redetermine the credit in accordance with law there was no substantial question of law and accordingly dismissed the appeal of the Revenue. To ascertain the exact amount required to be reversed on the input services used in providing the exempted output services, the matter needs to be remanded to the adjudicating authority - appeal allowed by way of remand.
Issues:
1. Whether the appellant is required to pay 6% / 8% of the value of exempted services due to common input services used for both exempted and taxable services during a specific period? Analysis: The appeal was filed against an order dated 30.7.2014 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Aurangabad, regarding the availing of cenvat credit on input services for providing taxable and exempted output services from 1.4.2008 to 31.3.2011. The appellant failed to maintain separate records as required by Rule 6(3A) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, leading to a demand of recovery amounting to ?82,97,036. The demand was confirmed with interest and penalty, prompting the appeal. The appellant's Chartered Accountant admitted the lack of separate records but highlighted the reversal of the entire cenvat credit amount availed on input services used for exempted services, along with interest payment on 20.1.2015. He argued that despite the reversal, payment of 6%/8% of the value of exempted services under Rule 6(3)(i) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 should not be mandatory. Referring to judgments like CCE, Chennai- II vs. Mount Mettur Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and CCE vs. Goyal Proteins Ltd., the appellant contended against the insistence on such payment. The Revenue's Assistant Commissioner supported the Commissioner's findings. The Tribunal examined the core issue of whether the appellant must pay 6% / 8% of the value of exempted services for using common input services for both exempted and taxable services during the mentioned period. Considering the appellant's reversal of the credit with interest, the Tribunal referred to judgments by the Madras High Court and Rajasthan High Court to support the appellant's argument. The Tribunal decided to remand the matter to the adjudicating authority to determine the exact amount to be reversed on the input services used for providing exempted output services. The appeal was allowed solely for the purpose of remand.
|
