Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2021 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (3) TMI 778 - AT - Service TaxReversal of CENVAT Credit - services provided to the service recipient located in the state of Jammu & Kashmir, which is exempted service - appellant is not maintaining separate account of inputs/input service used for providing exempted and taxable service - appellant has not provided any documentary evidence such as C.A. certificate with regard to payment of service tax - appellant has cleared inputs as such but has not reversed the cenvat credit availed on these inputs and no documents have been provided by the appellant in respect of reversal of the cenvat credit. HELD THAT:- As per Rule 2(e)(1), the taxable service, which is exempt from the whole of the service tax leviable thereon, is an exempted service. It is not the case of any side that the service which has been provided under the state of Jammu & Kashmir has been exempted as whole. Therefore, the said provision is not applicable to the facts of this case. On consideration of the decision in the case of Adecco Flexione Workforce Solutions Ltd [2015 (11) TMI 1047 - CESTAT BANGALORE] the period of dispute is year 2008-09, whereas the definition of ‘exempted service’ under Rule 2(e) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 has been introduced on 20.06.2012; therefore, the said decision is not applicable to the facts of this case. Further, in the case of Ramboll Imisoft Pvt Ltd [2016 (6) TMI 1071 - CESTAT HYDERABAD], this Tribunal has examined the issue in details and examined the definition of ‘exempted service’ under Rule 2(e) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and held that Section 64 of the Finance Act is not applicable to the state of Jammu & Kashmir. The appellant is providing taxable service and not any exempted service in the state of Jammu & Kashmir, for which reversal of the cenvat credit is sought by the Revenue, therefore, the provisions of Rule 6(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 are not applicable to the facts of this case. CENVAT Credit denied - Non production of documentary evidence such as C.A. certificate for payment of service tax on exempted service by the appellant - HELD THAT:- The appellant has produced the C.A. certificate dated 14.09.2019 and placed before me which certifies that the appellant has paid service tax on these exempted service, therefore, the said payment of service tax shall amounts to reversal of the cenvat credit of ₹ 93,206/- in the light of the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, PUNE VERSUS AJINKYA ENTERPRISES [2012 (7) TMI 141 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT]. Hence, the said amount of ₹ 93,206/- is set aside. CENVAT Credit - denial on the ground that there is no evidence on record that inputs cleared as such, the appellant has reversed the cenvat credit - HELD THAT:- The invoice itself speaks that the cenvat credit has reversed in terms of Rule 3(4) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and also produced the C.A. certificate along with details of all the invoices - the appellant has already reversed the cenvat credit of ₹ 87,036/-. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|