2024 (1) TMI 961 - AT - Service Tax

CENVAT Credit - exempted service namely cash credit, overdraft facilities, discounting of bills, interest on loan etc. - appellant has availed Cenvat credit on common Input service - requirement to pay 6% of the value of exempted service - suppression of facts or not - extended period of limitation - HELD THAT - The appellant being a Co-operative Bank and registered under Service Tax and paying service tax on the services. They are also availing Cenvat credit of service tax and all the details of payment of service tax and availment of credit declared in the ST-3 returns regularly. The issue is liability of 6% of the value of exempted services i.e. cash credit, overdraft facilities, discounting of bills, interest on loan etc. is well known to public at large which is normally a business of Bank therefore, It cannot be said that appellant have suppressed any fact with intent to evade payment of service tax or availment of credit. On this issue, as pointed out by the learned Counsel, the correspondence was going on since 22.04.2010 and various letters were exchanged. There are no suppression of fact or malafide on the part of the appellant. The period involved is 2008 to 2011, however, the show cause notice was issued beyond the normal period i.e. on 01.03.2013 therefore, the entire period of demand is beyond limitation. Accordingly, in terms of Section 73(1) of Finance Act , 1994 , the demand is not sustainable only on the ground of limitation itself. Hence, the impugned order is set-aside. Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues involved: Whether the appellant is liable to pay 6% of the value of exempted services when availing Cenvat credit on common input service.

Summary:

Issue 1 - Limitation:
The appellant, a Cooperative Bank, contested the issue of limitation regarding the demand of 6% under Rule 6(3) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The appellant argued that they regularly filed ST-3 returns declaring the availment of Cenvat credit and corresponded with the department since April 2010, indicating no suppression of facts. The appellant's activity was known to the public, and it was held that there was no suppression of fact or malafide intent to evade payment of service tax. The show cause notice was issued beyond the normal period, making the entire period of demand beyond limitation. Consequently, the demand was found not sustainable solely on the ground of limitation, leading to the setting aside of the impugned order and allowing the appeal.

Conclusion:
The appellate tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, determining that the demand was not sustainable due to the limitation issue, as per Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994.