9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (1) TMI 197 - AT - Service TaxCENVAT Credit - credit of service tax on input service erroneously taken Canteen/Food Coupon - Invocation of extended period of limitation - Held that - It appears that the employees had purchased food coupons from M/s. Accor Radhakrishna Corporate Services Limited. It cannot be said that the said Company had provided service to the appellant Company. - Credit cannot be allowed. The Commissioner (Appeals) observed that the appellant have not disclosed service in their returns - impugned order is modified to the extent the demand of service tax alongwith interest for the extended period of limitation is set-aside. The demand of service tax along with interest for the normal period of limitation is upheld - However penalty is set aside - Decided partly in favour of assessee.
Issues:
1. Denial of CENVAT credit on service tax for food coupons. 2. Interpretation of Cenvat Credit Rules regarding disclosure in returns. 3. Applicability of extended period of limitation. Analysis: Issue 1: Denial of CENVAT credit on service tax for food coupons The appellant, engaged in manufacturing excisable goods, faced a show cause notice proposing to deny CENVAT credit for service tax on input service related to food coupons. The appellant argued that providing food coupons to employees was part of the cost of production and thus eligible for CENVAT credit. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) raised concerns about whether the food grains purchased through the coupons were exclusively consumed by employees. It was noted that the outdoor caterers did not provide services to the appellant's employees directly, and there was no evidence that the food coupons were issued in the appellant's name. Consequently, the Tribunal did not find merit in the appellant's submissions on the eligibility of CENVAT credit in this case. Issue 2: Interpretation of Cenvat Credit Rules regarding disclosure in returns The appellant contended that the case involved an interpretation of Cenvat Credit Rules, and therefore, the extended period of limitation should not be invoked. It was highlighted that the appellant had disclosed the availment of CENVAT credit in their ER-1 returns, even though specific details of the service were not disclosed. Citing a previous Tribunal ruling in CCE vs. Pushp Enterprises, it was emphasized that mere disclosure of CENVAT credit in returns did not imply knowledge of inadmissibility unless evidence suggested otherwise. The Tribunal agreed with this argument and set aside the demand for service tax with interest for the extended period of limitation. Issue 3: Applicability of extended period of limitation Given that the case primarily involved the interpretation of statutes and rules, the Tribunal decided to set aside the penalty. The impugned order was modified to uphold the demand for service tax with interest for the normal period of limitation while setting aside the demand for the extended period. The Tribunal also considered various decisions cited by the appellant, supporting the view that disclosure in returns should not automatically imply knowledge of inadmissibility. In conclusion, the appeal was disposed of with modifications to the impugned order based on the above analysis, addressing the issues of CENVAT credit denial, interpretation of rules, and the applicability of the extended period of limitation.
|
