9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (4) TMI 897 - AT - Central ExciseCENVAT Credit - input services - Outdoor Catering services - Held that - In view of the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Wipro Ltd s case 2018 (4) TMI 149 - CESTAT BANGALORE , CENVAT Credit of Service Tax paid on outdoor catering service post 01.04.2011 is not admissible. Time Limitation - Held that - There is no merit in the contention of the learned Advocate that the demand is barred by limitation, when initially accepting the liability the entire amount was paid on 31.08.2014 with interest and later notice was issued for appropriation of the amount; and the second notice was for recovery of suo-moto credit of the same amount taken subsequently, which is within normal period of limitation. Thus, Appellants are not eligible to avail CENVAT Credit of Service Tax paid on outdoor catering service and required to reverse the same with interest as applicable; however, no penalty is attracted - the matter is remanded to the Adjudicating Authority to examine whether the entire amount of CENVAT Credit with interest has been paid.
Issues:
- Denial of CENVAT Credit on outdoor catering service - Limitation period for recovery of credit - Imposition of penalty Denial of CENVAT Credit on outdoor catering service: The Appellant, engaged in manufacturing motor vehicle parts, availed inadmissible CENVAT Credit on services like Rent-a-cab, Outdoor Catering, Mediclaim Insurance, and Vehicle Insurance. They reversed the disputed amount with interest upon audit. The issue revolved around the denial of CENVAT Credit of ?4,77,791/- on outdoor catering service. The Appellant argued that conflicting views existed on the admissibility of such credit, citing a Tribunal judgment in their favor before a subsequent ruling against them. The Tribunal's Larger Bench decision clarified that post-April 2011, such credit was inadmissible. The Appellant's contention that the demand was time-barred due to the initial payment and subsequent suo-moto credit was dismissed. The judgment upheld the denial of CENVAT Credit on outdoor catering service but ruled out the imposition of penalty due to the conflicting views prevailing during the relevant period. Limitation period for recovery of credit: The Revenue contended that the Appellant had initially availed inadmissible credit on outdoor catering service, subsequently reversing it upon detection. The first Show Cause Notice sought appropriation of the amount paid, while the second aimed at recovering the suo-moto credit taken post-reversal. The Revenue argued that both proceedings were interconnected, focusing on the ?4,77,791/- credit availed on outdoor catering service. The judgment rejected the contention that the demand was time-barred, emphasizing the sequential nature of the events leading to the recovery of the credit. It found the recovery within the normal limitation period, thereby upholding the Revenue's stance on the issue. Imposition of penalty: The Appellant's plea against the imposition of penalty was based on the conflicting Tribunal views regarding the admissibility of CENVAT Credit on outdoor catering service. The judgment concurred, deeming the penalty unwarranted due to the evolving interpretations during the relevant period. It modified the impugned order, directing the Appellant to reverse the inadmissible credit with interest but absolving them of any penalty. The matter was remanded to the Adjudicating Authority to verify the payment of the CENVAT Credit with interest. The judgment concluded by disposing of the appeals, maintaining the denial of credit while eliminating the penalty imposition. This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues of denial of CENVAT Credit on outdoor catering service, the limitation period for credit recovery, and the imposition of penalty, providing a comprehensive overview of the legal proceedings and the Tribunal's decision.
|
