Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2019 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (3) TMI 514 - AT - Central ExciseUtilization of CENVAT credit - carriage inward - financial year 2007-08 to 2009-10 - Whether a manufacturer having credit balance in his account can utilize that credit for payment of Service Tax on goods transport by road? - Rule 3 (4) of CCR - time limitation - scope of SCN - Held that:- CENVAT Credit can be utilized for payment of Service Tax on any output service - Thus, the reasoning of the adjudicating authority that since GTA do not qualify to be an output service as such is not eligible for Cenvat Credit. Hence payment of Service Tax thereof cannot be made from the accumulated Cenvat Credit is opined as incorrect. Though there are several other proviso attached to this sub-rule (4) but none of those provisos are applicable to the given situation. There is an explanation that CENVAT credit cannot be utilized for payment of service tax in respect of services where the person liable to pay tax is the service recipient. But this explanation got incorporated in this Rule vide Notification No.28 dated 20th June, 2012 with effect from 1st July, 2012. The period here is 2007-08 to 2009-10. Hence, the explanation cannot be made retrospectively applicable to the impugned period for which the above condition holds a good law that cenvat credit may be utilized for payment of Service Tax on any output service (including GTA service). Extended period of limitation - Held that:- Discharging the liability by utilizing the cenvat credit is otherwise a situation of Revenue neutrality, due to which, no mala fide can be attributed to the appellant that there was an intention to cause a loss to Government Exchequer - Department was not entitled to invoke the extended period of limitation. Scope of SCN - Held that:- The order under challenge has gone beyond the scope of show cause notice by confirming the demand till December, 2010, despite that, it was proposed till 31st December, 2009. In the light of entire above discussion, the order under challenge is held not sustainable. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|