Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2012 (12) TMI 542

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ed at Jammu & Kashmir and service provided to the units situated in SEZ. In view of the provisions of Section 64 of the Finance Act, 1994 the service tax is not leviable on the service provided to the customers in the state of Jammu & Kashmir. Thus the service provided in the state of Jammu & Kashmir does not attract service tax leviable under Section 66 of the Finance Act, 1994. Further, the services provided to the units situated in SEZ is exempted vide Notification 4/2004-ST dated 31.3.2004. Thus as per definition of exempted services given in Rule 2(e) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 both these services were exempted services. It was found that M/s. AGC had not maintained separate accounts in respect of receipt, consumption and inventory o .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... first round of litigation when the matter had come before this Tribunal, this Tribunal vide order No. A/128/WZB/AHD/2010 dated 06.1.2010 remanded the matter back to the Commissioner for fresh decision with following observations:- 4. We have considered the submissions made by both the sides. We find considerable force in the argument advanced by the learned advocate that once a service tax paid on input services has not been taken at all, the provisions of Rule 6(3)(c) of Cenvat Credit Rules would not be applicable. However, we find that even though the appellants submitted a list of ten services and the credit available thereon which was not taken, no verification has been conducted to check whether the claim made by the appellant that .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... tion of input services. There is no detailed discussion on applicability of this rule and the requirement of maintenance of separate accounts by the Commissioner in the impugned order. However, in view of this provision we agree with the learned advocate that unless the department shows that appellants have availed credit of input services which have also been used for providing any of the exempted services, the demand cannot be sustained. For this purpose there is a need for verification of the claim made by the appellants that they have not taken credit of service tax paid on all the common input services and their number is only ten. Even though all the other points are arguable, since we find that if the claim made by the appellants in .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ixed. It was also observed that after consulting the learned advocate, 23 and 24.01.2012 were fixed on the dates on which the appellant was required to visit divisional office and produce relevant records before the Assistant Commissioner who had to do the verification. Thereafter the appellant sought time before the Assistant Commissioner and Assistant Commissioner reported on 02.5.2012 that appellant did not submit documents for verification. It was also reported by the Assistant Commissioner that officers from the division office personally visited the premises of the assessee several times but documents were not submitted.   4. At the outset, learned advocate submitted that the Commissioner had relied upon the reports of Assistant .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the appellants were given opportunity to substantiate their case before the original adjudicating authority which they failed to utilise. This time also learned counsel wanted the matter to be remanded on the ground that Assistant Commissioner s reports were not given to the appellants. We do not know what the reports contained since the overall observations of the Commissioner would show that appellants did not extend cooperation and consequently no verification could be conducted and impugned order came to be passed. Nevertheless, we find that another opportunity is required to be given to the appellants and learned advocate also agreed that this time they would ensure that documents are submitted and cooperation is extended. 6. In vie .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates