TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 973X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t is a taxable service and for providing output taxable service, as per Rule 3 of CCR, 2004, the appellant is entitled to avail CENVAT credit. The same issue was dealt by this Tribunal in the case of CST, Ahmedabad vs. Krishna Communication [2013 (6) TMI 137 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD], where it was held that It is settled law that there cannot be one to one co-relation in availing of the CENVAT Credit of the input service to the provision of output service. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - ST/27788/2013-SM - 22502/2017 - Dated:- 23-10-2017 - Shri Ashok Jindal, Judicial Member Ms. Sandhya Sarvode, Advocate For the Appellant Mr. Pakshirajan, AR For the Respondent ORDER Per : Ashok Jindal The appel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant is a taxable service. The only issue is that the appellant could not realize the amount from the service recipient and during the impugned period, the service tax was payable on realization of the service tax from the service recipient. In that circumstance, I hold that the services provided by the appellant is a taxable service and for providing output taxable service, as per Rule 3 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, the appellant is entitled to avail CENVAT credit. The same issue was dealt by this Tribunal in the case of CST, Ahmedabad vs. Krishna Communication as reported in 2013 (31) STR 285 (Tri.-Ahmd. ) wherein the facts of the case are as under: 3. During the course of audit conducted by CERA, it was noticed that Service Tax w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gth by both the sides and perused the records. I find that the issue involved in this case is denial of the proportionate credit of Service Tax credit, on the ground that the appellant had written off the certain amount as bad debts from the books of accounts for which input services were utilised. It is also undisputed that the respondent had not received the Service Tax liability on the amount which has been written off by them, as per the provisions of Service Tax Rules. From the records, it is seen that there is no dispute as to the eligibility of availment of CENVAT Credit of the Service Tax paid, by the service provider. It is also not in dispute that such services were received by the appellant and were utilized for providing output ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ut service credit attributable to such write off was required to be reversed or paid by the service provider as input service to this extent had gone into an output service on which no Service Tax was payable. The reason attributed for the proposed reversal of input credit availed is that the CENVAT Credit scheme envisages availment of credit towards payment of Service Tax on output services. Where no Service Tax is payable on any output service either because such service itself is exempt or because the service charges billed for in respect of such services becomes irrecoverable, the Service Tax credit was not available to the assessee, as the credit cannot be used as set off against output services in such cases. Accordingly, the adjudica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be recovered from the manufacturer or the provider of the output service and the provisions of Sections 11A and 11AB of the Excise Actor Sections 73 and 75 of the Finance Act, shall apply mutatis mutandis for effecting such recoveries. The rule envisages reversal of credit wrongly utilized or erroneously refunded. In this case, the services rendered are taxable services. The credit of inputs/input services availed is utilized in providing taxable output services. Hence, there is nothing wrong in availing and utilization of the credit. Rule 14 does not envisage recovery of credit in situations where Service Tax recovery was pending and written off as bad debts later. Further, I find that the bad debts have accumulated over a period of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|