9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (3) TMI 319X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... edit Rules, 2004. This view is also supported by the decision of Tribunal in the case of NISSAN MOTOR INDIA PRIVATE LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX, CHENNAI [ 2019 (2) TMI 1299 - CESTAT CHENNAI] and POLYGENTA TECHNOLOGIES LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NASIK-I [ 2018 (2) TMI 804 - CESTAT, MUMBAI] . The entire case of the Revenue is based on invocation of Rule 9(1)(bb) of the Cenvat Credit Rules and since the said Rule is not applicable in respect of the service tax paid by the recipient of service under Reverse Charge Mechanism, the demand of reversal of cenvat credit cannot be upheld - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Excise Appeal No.10318 of 2021 - Final Order No. 10217 2022 - Dated:- 7-3-2022 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder VCES. After payment of service tax, the appellant availed cenvat credit of the said service tax paid under VCES 2013, in the ST-3 Returns for the period October 2014 to March 2015 filed on 24.04.2015. The said credit was distributed to various manufacturing plants by issuing ISD invoices. After pre show cause notice consultations, a show cause notice was issued to the appellant demanding reversal of cenvat credit taken by them invoking Rule 9(1)(bb) and (e) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The demand along with interest was confirmed by the original adjudicating authority. Penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act 1994 read with Rule 15(2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 was also imposed. 2. Learned Counsel for the appellant pointed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2016 (44) STR 465 (T), 2017 (7) GSTL J35 (SC) Jet Airways (I) Ltd. 3. Learned Authorized Representative relies on the impugned order. He argued that the scheme of VCES was to persuade the service tax defaulters to pay tax. He pointed out that immunity from penalty, interest and prosecution was granted because the failure to pay service tax would have otherwise led to invocation of penal provisions. He further relied on the CBEC Circular dated 20.01.2014 read with answer to FAQ no. 22 which clarify the issue relating to admissibility of cenvat credit. 3.1 He further relied on the decision of the CESTAT Allahabad in the case of IMI Norgren Herion Pvt. Ltd. reported at 2019 TIOL 3320-CESTAT-ALL. He further argued that the availemnt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt have argued that Rule 9(1)(bb) does not apply to the service tax paid under Reverse Charge Mechanism by the service recipient. Rule 9(1)(bb) applies only to supplementary invoice, bill or challan issued by provider of output Service . In the instant case, it is an undisputed fact that service tax has been paid by the appellant under Reverse Charge Mechanism in the capacity of recipient of service and not as provider of service . In these circumstances, the case of the appellant would be covered under Rule 9(1)(e) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. This view is also supported by the decision of Tribunal in the case of Nissan Motors India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and Polygenta Technologies Ltd. (supra). In the case of Polygenta Technologies Li ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
