2019 (12) TMI 238 - AT - Service Tax

CENVAT Credit - rental premises - contravention of provisions of Rule 2 (l) Rule 3 and Rule 9 (6) of the CENVAT Credit Rules 2004 - Extended period of limitation - HELD THAT - The Show Cause Notice/Statement of Demand has been issued without any whisper as to invoking the larger period of limitation much less any whisper as to suppression fraud etc. - Admittedly the proposal to raise the demand was for a much earlier period. If the proposal to raise the demand is for an earlier period beyond one year then the authority has to invariably invoke the extended period of limitation and invoking the larger period could be possible only if there is suppression fraud etc. played by the assessee to justify such invocation of larger period. In view of this the appellant should succeed on this ground alone. The Revenue has not been able to justify the invocation of extended period of limitation as there is not even an allegation as to suppression fraud etc. and hence the demand cannot sustain - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Contravention of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004
2. Wrongful availing of CENVAT Credit on rental premises
3. Barred by limitation
4. Justification for invocation of extended period of limitation

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Contravention of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004:
The Show Cause Notice/Statement of Demand dated 14.03.2018 alleged that the appellant contravened Rule 2(l), Rule 3, and Rule 9(6) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 by wrongly availing CENVAT Credit of Rs. 1,41,323/- on the rental premises. The rental premises were not related to the factory premises, which was not involved in the manufacture of goods.

2. Wrongful Availing of CENVAT Credit on Rental Premises:
The appellant contended that the CENVAT Credit was availed on rental charges paid for premises used as office space, which was necessary for manufacturing activities. The appellant argued that under the law, CENVAT Credit on rented premises could be availed if the services were related to the manufacture of goods. The appellant also highlighted that the rental agreement was terminated after setting up the factory.

3. Barred by Limitation:
The appellant argued that the Statement of Demand, issued nearly three years after the period involved (04/2015 to 06/2015), was barred by limitation. The demand was issued without invoking the larger period of limitation and without any allegations of suppression, fraud, etc.

4. Justification for Invocation of Extended Period of Limitation:
The appellant’s advocate argued that the demand was issued without invoking the extended period of limitation, and there were no allegations of suppression, fraud, etc. The decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of M/s. Bharat Hotels Ltd. was cited, emphasizing that for invoking the extended period of limitation, there must be evidence of suppression, fraud, or intent to evade payment of duty. The court held that mere non-payment of duties is not equivalent to collusion, wilful misstatement, or suppression of facts. The burden of proving suppression of fact lies with the Revenue, which failed to do so in this case.

Judgment:
The tribunal held that the Revenue did not justify the invocation of the extended period of limitation as there were no allegations of suppression, fraud, etc. Consequently, the demand could not be sustained. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential benefits as per law.

Conclusion:
The appeal was allowed primarily on the ground that the demand was barred by limitation, and the Revenue failed to prove any suppression, fraud, or intent to evade duty. The tribunal emphasized the necessity of clear allegations and evidence for invoking the extended period of limitation.