Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2019 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (3) TMI 246 - AT - Service TaxNon-payment of service tax - storage and warehousing service - charges collected by the appellant from their sister concern for storage of soya bean meal which they subsequently exported - Held that:- Once the appellant is charging a sum for storage of the goods which belongs to another legal entity, the amounts have to be considered as storage and warehousing charges and a service tax has to be paid accordingly. The appellant has clearly not paid the service tax nor have they disclosed the details of service charges to the department - Even when the department received information and inquired from them, they did not produce the required information immediately - this is a fit case to invoke extended period of limitation and invoke a demand. Wrongful utilization of CENVAT credit of input services consumed into exempted output services for payment of service tax - appellant has utilized 100% of credit taken instead only 20% as was prevalent during the relevant period in terms of Rule 6(3)(c) of CCR, 2004 - Held that:- It is true that during the relevant period only 20% of credit could be utilized but we find force in the argument of the appellant that they were not barred from taking credit but were only barred from utilizing it. They were free to utilize remaining 80% in the immediate next financial year. Therefore, the demand on this ground does not sustain. CENVAT Credit - credit of common input services - demand equal to 8% of the value of exempted services for period 01.4.2008 to 31.3.2008 under Rule 14 of CCR, 2004 - demand of ₹ 1,43,310/- at the rate of 6% of value of exempted services for the period 01.4.2009 to 06.7.2009 under Rule 6(3) read with Rule 14 of CCR - Held that:- Once the CENVAT credit on common input services has been reversed the demand under Rule 6(3) read with Rule 14 does not sustain - appellant have reversed the entire amount of credit taken on common input services and therefore these demands need to be dropped along with interest thereon - demand set aside. Penalties - Held that:- The appellant may have been under the mistaken impression that they were not liable to pay service tax on the warehousing charges and therefore, taking a lenient view and invoking provisions of Sec.80 of the Finance Act, 1994, penalties set aside. Appeal disposed off.
|