9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (7) TMI 252X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i (for short, 'the Tribunal') raising the following substantial question of law : "Whether the credit of input service availed at the time of receipt of inputs is required to be reversed at the time of clearance of inputs as such when the said service tax credit is in respect of or related to such inputs ?" 2. Briefly, the facts, as have been mentioned in the memo of appeal, are that the respondent-assessee is engaged in the manufacture of non-alloy steel ingots. It is registered under the Central Excise Act as well as for payment of service tax. Apparently finding that the assessee contravened the provisions of rule 3(5) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 (for short, 'the Rules') while not reversing the input credit o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ard to the input service while reversing the same with regard to excise duty of inputs. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the assessee submitted that there is material difference in the language used by the rule-making authority in rule 3(5) and rule 5 of the Rules. Rule 3(5) only talks about reversal of Cenvat credit on inputs or capital goods, whereas rule 5 talks about Cenvat credit on input or input service. He further referred to rule 2(k) and (l) of the Rules to show that 'input' and 'input service' have been separately defined under the Rules, where the 'input' means certain materials, whereas the 'input service' means the services availed of. The submission is that once there is no pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... there is no provision to reverse the credit of service tax availed in respect of such goods or capital goods'. Following the judgment of the Tribunal, I hold that the impugned order is not sustainable. The same is set aside. The appeal is allowed." It has been specifically mentioned in the memo of appeal by the revenue that no appeal was preferred by it against the judgment relied upon by the Tribunal. Be that as it may, however, still even on merits, this court finds that the view as expressed by the Tribunal is strictly in conformity with the Rules. Rule 2(k) of the Rules defines 'input', whereas rule 2(l) defines 'input service', meaning thereby both the terms have been defined independently. Rule 3 defines t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the provisions particularly where the language is plain and unambiguous. In a taxing Act it is not possible to assume any intention or governing purpose of the statute more than what is stated in the plain language. It is not the economic results sought to be obtained by making the provision which is relevant in interpreting a fiscal statute. Equally impermissible is an interpretation which does not follow from the plain, unambiguous language of the statute. Words cannot be added to or substituted so as to give a meaning to the statute which will serve the spirit and intention of the Legislature. The statute should clearly and unambiguously convey the three components of the tax law i.e., the subject of the tax, the person who is liable to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
