Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2019 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (8) TMI 1644 - AT - Service TaxCENVAT Credit - common input services used/utilised for both manufacturing of excisable goods and for the trading activities - non-compliance with the requirement of Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - impugned order was passed mainly on the ground that the appellant did not comply with the provisions of sub-rule (3) of Rule 6 ibid inasmuch as neither it had paid the amount provided in said rule nor complied with the procedures and the conditions laid down therein - time limitation - HELD THAT:- The term “exempted service” has been defined in Rule 2(e) ibid. The said phrase was brought into the ambit of such definition clause by way of an explanation appended to the said rule w.e.f. 1-4-2011. The issue whether, the activity of trading should fall within the ambit of exempted service was highly contentious and there were divergent views by the judicial forums. Even, the issue regarding retrospective or prospective application of such explanation clause was also highly debatable. Thus, under such circumstances, payment of amount as per the requirement of sub-rule (3) of Rule 6 ibid was not diligently complied with by the appellant, as asserted. However, it is noticed that based on the records maintained by the appellant, the Cenvat amount attributable to the common input services used for the trading activity was reversed. On proper scrutiny of the case records, we are convinced that the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked against the appellant for confirmation of the adjudged demands inasmuch as the charges of suppression, fraud, wilful misstatement etc., cannot be invoked for bona fide interpretation of the statutory provisions placed by the appellant. This Tribunal in the case of CST, NEW DELHI VERSUS M/S. AVL INDIA PVT. LTD. [2017 (3) TMI 793 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] has held that the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked to the issues concerning interpretation of the provisions contained in the explanation to Rule 2(e) ibid and accordingly, has held that the demand, if any, should only be confined to the normal period. It has also been held that penalty cannot be imposed on the assessee. Time Limitation - HELD THAT:- There are no merits in the impugned order, insofar as it has confirmed the adjudged demands under the extended period of limitation. With regard to the demand pertains to the normal period, the Lower Adjudicating Authority has denied the benefit to the appellant on the ground that the conditions laid down in Rule 6(3A) have not been duty complied with. It is an accepted principle of law that non-filing of intimation before the department is a procedural lapse, for which the substantive right to avail the benefit conferred under the statute cannot be whittled down. Since the appellant submits that the procedure laid down under sub-rule (3A) of Rule 6 ibid have been duly complied with by it, the matter should be remanded to the Original Authority for ascertaining compliance of such provisions by the appellant. If the laid down procedures have been complied with, no demands shall be confirmed under the normal period of limitation. However, it is made clear that in either of the situation, no interest demand shall be confirmed on the appellant. Appeal allowed by way of remand.
|