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

2024 (10) TMI 817

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 04.2006 is legal and proper. Credit availed on the payment of service tax made for the period prior to 18.04.2006 - HELD THAT:- The law relating to taxability of import services was not settled during that period. However, the Respondent decided to pay service tax to avoid any disputes. Once, service tax is paid by the Respondent on the import of services and the same is accepted by the Department, then the credit of the same cannot be denied. The Respondent is eligible to avail the credit of service tax paid under Section 66A during the period from 2004-05 to 2007-08 - the impugned order is upheld - appeal filed by Revenue is rejected. - HON BLE SHRI ASHOK JINDAL, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND HON BLE SHRI K. ANPAZHAKAN, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) APPEA .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... aid Notice was adjudicated by the Ld. Principal Commissioner vide the impugned order wherein the demands raised in the Notice were dropped. Aggrieved against the dropping of the demands, Revenue has preferred this appeal. 3. In the Grounds of Appeal, Revenue has made the following submissions: - (i) In the impugned order, the Adjudicating Authority has held that the Service Tax paid under Reverse Charge Mechanism in terms of Section 66A of Finance Act, 1994 has been added in the list of eligible credits under Rule 3 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 only w.e.f. 18.04.2006. It is, therefore, unambiguous that availment of credit of Service Tax paid under Reverse Charge Mechanism for the period prior to 18.04.2006 is not justified. (ii) In the case .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... service tax made after 18.04.2006, a specific provision was inserted in Rule 3 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 allowing CENVAT credit of service tax paid under Section 66A of the Finance Act, 1994 and hence, there is no question of denial of credit availed after 18.04.2006. 4.1. In respect the credit availed on the payment of service tax made for the period prior to 18.04.2006, the Respondent submits that during this period, the law relating to taxability of import services was not settled; in view of the uncertainty that prevailed, they decided to pay service tax. It is submitted that once, service tax is paid on import of services and the same is accepted by the Department, then the credit of the same cannot be denied. 4.2. The Respondent re .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... yment of service tax made for the period prior to 18.04.2006, we observe that the law relating to taxability of import services was not settled during that period. However, the Respondent decided to pay service tax to avoid any disputes. Once, service tax is paid by the Respondent on the import of services and the same is accepted by the Department, then the credit of the same cannot be denied. 6.3. We observe that this view has been held by CESTAT, Mumbai in the case of Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd. vs Commissioner of Central Excise, LTU, Mumbai. [2016-TIOL-576-CESTAT-Mum]. The relevant part of the said decision is reproduced below: - 8. Ater going through the various circulars and the judgments I find that there is only one charging section in t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... their ER-1 returns and they were under a bona fide belief that they are liable to pay tax in terms of Rule 2 (1) (d) (iv) and also entitled to take credit and the issue involved in the present case was with regard in interpretation of statutory provision and moreover the ld. Commissioner has also not given any finding that the appellant have suppressed anything from the department. Further, I find that the judgment cited by the ld. AR are not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case and it is not necessary for me to deal with each and every judgment separately. 6.4. The same view has been held by CESTAT, New Delhi in the case of Alcatel Lucent India Ltd vs Commissioner of Service Tax, [2021 (2) TMI 157 -CESTAT, New Delh .....

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