9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (4) TMI 639X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o be extended. CENVAT Credit - Interpretation of Rule 6 of CCR - Held that:- rule is very clear and service tax is payable on a monthly basis and therefore the percentage mentioned in the rule has to be calculated on a monthly basis only. I find that no other interpretation is possible as far as this rule is concerned. Therefore the irregular utilization of the credit by the appellant has to be upheld. CENVAT Credit - Mobile phones - Held that:- amount involved is small and there is no finding or no verification as to whether company had paid the tax or not. The learned counsel submitted that mobile phones were in the name of company only and tax was also paid by the company only. Having regard to the facts and circumstances and the proceedings and investigation, I find that the credit cannot be denied. Penalties under Section 76, 77 & 78 is waived invoking Section 80 - Decided partly in favour of assessee. - ST/283/2007-SM - - - Dated:- 10-2-2014 - SHRI B.S.V.MURTHY, J. For the Appellant : Shri B. Venugopal, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri Ganesh Haavanur, Addl. Commissioner(AR) JUDGEMENT Per : B.S.V.MURTHY The amount of service tax confir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g that since the suppliers were exporting they did not have to pay any tax. During the process of adjudication, the appellants produced a list of service exporters to whom they were providing service. They could also produce a couple of letters issued by such service receivers stating that their services were being totally exported. In respect of remaining units, the assessee could not produce supporting documents. In the result, Revenue has treated the appellant as ineligible for the exemption and on the entire amount of service charges received, tax has been demanded. The claim of the appellant has also been rejected on the ground that the services of BPO, call centers, medical transcription centres etc. are rendered in India and therefore the services themselves cannot be called as export of service. However, the fact remains that appellants had produced a list of customers to whom they had provided service and who were exporting of their services and some of their customers had confirmed the same also. Moreover as mentioned in the statement of facts, the Boards circular clarifies that no service tax would be liable on secondary services if the secondary services are used by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1,354,000 10/4/2004 Aug 04 38,483 152,882 367,887 367,887 12/10/2004 50,525 Sep 04 45,658 198,540 616,225 616,225 1/12/2005 20,259 1,000 Oct 04 68,794 267,334 424,347 424,347 1/12/2005 8,545 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es, the appellant did not utilize the CENVAT credit at all till December 2004 and in the balance 3 months utilised the accumulated credit. It is his submission that the 20% requirement if it is calculated on an early basis, the appellant has violated the requirement of the rule only in the month of March 2005 to the extent of Rs.1,00,117/-. However, ongoing through the relevant rule which is Rule 6(3)(c) reads as follows:-The provider of output service shall utilize credit only to the extent of an amount not exceeding 20% of the amount of service tax payable on taxable output service. Learned AR submits that the rule is very clear and service tax is payable on a monthly basis and therefore the percentage mentioned in the rule has to be calculated on a monthly basis only. I find that no other interpretation is possible as far as this rule is concerned. Therefore the irregular utilization of the credit by the appellant has to be upheld. Nevertheless, there are certain factors which are required to be noted. The first factor is that the appellant has paid interest of about Rs.82,000/- even though they could have utilised 20% of the CENVAT credit towards payment of service tax and be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
