9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (11) TMI 365 - AT - Service TaxCENVAT Credit - input services - Renting of Immovable property Service - Consulting Engineers Service - Commercial Construction, Erection Commissioning Services - GTA Service - Works Contract Service - section 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - HELD THAT - The facts of the facts are not in dispute that appellant has provided the output service and paid service tax thereon. Therefore, any service received by the appellant is an input service and is entitle for Cenvat credit in terms of Rule 3 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The adjudicating authority fell in error by holding that as the project was derailed therefore, no service has been provided by the appellant. Although, during impugned period i.e. April-2009 to March-2010, the project was work in process therefore, it cannot be held that no taxable service has been provided by the appellant. As the facts of the case are not in dispute that the appellant has provided taxable services and paid service tax thereon, therefore, any service used by the appellant for providing the above said taxable service the appellant is entitle to take Cenvat Credit of the service received - the appellant is entitle to take Cenvat credit of ₹ 5,57,25,547/-, hence no demand is sustainable against the appellant, consequently, no penalty is imposable on the appellant. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues:
1. Allowance of Cenvat Credit on input services utilized by the appellant. 2. Allegation of no output service provided due to project derailment. 3. Disallowance and recovery of Cenvat credit availed during a specific period. 4. Barred by limitation show cause notice issuance. Analysis: Issue 1: Allowance of Cenvat Credit on Input Services The appellant, a service provider registered under various categories, availed Cenvat Credit on input services used for providing output services. The appellant claimed Cenvat Credit on services from foreign vendors related to the installation and commissioning of a bridge project. The appellant argued that as a provider of output services, they were entitled to take Cenvat credit as per Rule 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The Tribunal agreed, stating that any service received by the appellant for providing taxable services is considered an input service eligible for Cenvat credit under Rule 3 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Issue 2: Allegation of No Output Service Provided It was alleged that due to a project derailment, the input services utilized did not result in providing any output service, leading to the disallowance of Cenvat Credit. The appellant argued that despite the initial derailment, they later modified the design and successfully executed the project, paying service tax on the completed work. The Tribunal found that during the period in question, the project was still in progress, and the appellant had provided taxable services and paid service tax on them. Therefore, the contention that no taxable service was provided due to the project derailment was deemed incorrect. Issue 3: Disallowance and Recovery of Cenvat Credit A show cause notice was issued to disallow and recover the Cenvat credit availed during a specific period, along with proposed penalties and interest. The Tribunal held that since the appellant had provided taxable services and paid service tax on them, they were entitled to take Cenvat credit of the disputed amount. Consequently, no demand was found sustainable against the appellant, and no penalty was imposed. Issue 4: Barred by Limitation Show Cause Notice Issuance The appellant contended that the show cause notice issued beyond the normal limitation period was barred by limitation as the facts were known to the authorities since October 2011. The Tribunal agreed that the notice issued beyond the normal limitation period of one year was indeed barred by limitation, considering the awareness of the authorities regarding the availment of Cenvat credit and the project derailment. In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal with consequential relief for the appellant.
|
