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 1334 - CESTAT CHANDIGARHReversal of CENVAT Credit - shifting of capital goods from their own unit to the another unit - Held that:- As the appellant are transferring capital goods of their one unit to another unit it means the appellant is clearing goods for themselves only, in that circumstances, the appellant is not required to reverse cenvat credit as held by this Tribunal in their own case M/S BSNL, SALEM VERSUS CCE, SALEM [2013 (1) TMI 142 - CESTAT CHENNAI] - reversal not required - penalty set aside. CENVAT credit - recovery in terms of Rule 6 (3)(C) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - taxable as well as exempted service - Held that:- It is fact on record that in the month of February 2008 the appellant utilized cenvat credit account more than 20%, but, in the subsequent month i.e. March 2008 the appellant has not utilized 20% of the cenvat credit available in the cenvat credit account. If utilization of both months is taken together, in that circumstances, the appellant has utilized only 20% of the cenvat credit lying in their cenvat credit account - no demand is sustainable against the appellant on this issue - penalty set aside. Extended period of limitation - Held that:- The appellant as claiming bonafide belief that on non taxable/exempted services, they are not required to reverse the service tax, as same has shown in their ST-3 returns. This cannot be the reason for bonafide belief when law is clear from 01.04.2008. As on 01.04.2008 law has been changed for the period of availment of cenvat credit restricted to 20%, but, post on 01.04.2008 law has been changed and they are required to reverse the proportionate cenvat credit or to pay 8/6% of the value of the exempted services. In that circumstances, bonafide of the appellant are absent - the demand is rightly confirmed by invoking the extended period of limitation for non reversal of proportionate cenvat credit of exempted service or payment of 8/6% of the exempted services alongwith interest. Penalty - Held that:- The appellant is a public sector undertaking and being a mistake of the officers of the organisation should not be penalized as no benefit is going to arise to the public sector undertaking. Therefore, penalty against the appellant on this account is set-aside. Appeal disposed off.
|