9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (9) TMI 1084X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as well as non-taxable services. It is in the aforesaid context that it has ultimately upheld the right of the assessee for a proportionate reversal in accordance with Rule 6 (3) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. In the absence of the appellant having been able to establish any intent on the part of the respondent-assessee to evade payment of duty, there are no justification to interfere with the view ultimately expressed by the CESTAT. Appeal dismissed. - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA For the Appellant Through: Mr. Aditya Singla, SSC with Mr. Sarthak Mittal Mr. Raghav, Advs. For the Respondent Through: Mr. Pawan Arora, Adv. ORDER PER CM APPL. 36230/2024 (120 Days Delay) Bearing in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... echnologies Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of GST Central Excise, Chennai reported as MANU/CC/0021/2023 dated 27.02.2023 in Service Tax Appeal No. 689 of 2012 , it is mentioned that, hence, there is no infirmity as far as the non-reversal of Cenvat credit under Rule 6 (3) of CCR, 2004 has been ordered. The order of imposition of penalty due to non-payment of service tax under Reverse Charge Mechanism on legal charges is also impressed as correct. The appeal in question is accordingly prayed to be decided in favour of Revenue at least for the two counts as mentioned above. 3. It was in the aforesaid context that the CESTAT found that the solitary question which thus survived was with respect to CENVAT credit availed by the company on Group Personal A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Larger Bench of this Tribunal while deciding the case of Reliance Industries Ltd. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex. S.T. (LTU), Mumbai reported as 2022 (60) G.S.T.L. 442 (Tri.-LB), wherein it was held as follows: 34. It needs be noted here that though the Bombay High Court in Ultratech Cement categorised input service into three categories, as against five categories by the Bombay High Court in Coca Cola India, there is actually no difference between the two judgments as the third category in Ultratech Cement covers the last three of the five categories mentioned in Coca Cola India. 35. The following two principles from the aforesaid two judgments of the Bombay High Court would be of relevance to the present dispute: (a) The definition of input serv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... limb of the definition is independent and benefit of Cenvat credit would be available even if any one of them is satisfied. So far as the first limb is concerned, the requirement of establishing a nexus between the input services and the process of manufacture would stand satisfied if the expenditure incurred for the input service forms part of the cost of production/value of the final product on which duty of the excise is levied. In this view of the matter, the appellant would be entitled to avail Cenvat credit on the service tax paid on insurance premium for employees who had opted for the Voluntary Separation Scheme. The interpretation of Rule 2 (l) of the 2004 Rules has been conclusively settled by the Hon ble Bombay High Court in Coc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... redit Rules, 2004 [CCR]. 6. The fact that the CENVAT credit had been duly determined and deposited also does not appear to have been an issue of contestation as would be apparent from a reading of Para 14 which is reproduced hereinbelow:- 14. Clause (i) further provides that if the amount so determined is not paid within the due date i.e. 30th June then in addition to the said amount, the assessee shall be able to pay interest @24% per annum to the due date till the date of payment. Thus, it is evident that the condition of filing the declaration is only directory and not mandatory. In case, a particular option is not opted by the output service provider, we are of the opinion that Revenue cannot insist assessee to a avail particular option ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der was liable under Reverse Charge Mechanism to discharge the said liability, the recipient in the present case being situated in non-taxable territory. Apparently and admittedly, the liability on this count stands already discharged by the appellant. The adjudicating authority has still made appellant liable for payment of interest. But we are of opinion that there is no evidence on record about the discharge of said liability beyond the reasonable time. The question of payment of interest does not at all arises. We also observe that the issue of levy of service tax on legal services is undisputedly a question of law pending consideration before the Hon ble High Court of Delhi. Imposition of penalty in these circumstances, does not at all ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
