2022 (11) TMI 325 - AT - Service Tax
CENVAT Credit - common input services - time barred demand for the period April to September 2008 - Explanation 1 (d) to Rule 6(3D) of the CCR for computing exempt service pertaining to trading in securities is not applicable for the period prior to 01.04.2011 - extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- It is quite evident that the appellant had submitted the entire information in respect of the input services and their use in the exempted output services. Further it is also evident that Commissioner has failed to point out even a single information which was relevant for determination of the issue in question. Can there be any specific reply without a specific query. When the appellant had submitted the voluminous information as has been accepted by the Commissioner in the impugned order it is for the revenue authorities to scrutinize the same and arrive at the conclusions in a time bound manner. Failure to make any inquiry specific to availment of CENVAT Credit on taxable and exempted services by the department cannot be ground for invocation of extended period of limitation by alleging charge of suppression against the appellant. For its own failure to make inquiry and investigations within the prescribed period of time, department cannot invoke extended period of limitation. The demand to this extent cannot be sustained and needs to be set aside.
Computational Errors - HELD THAT:- As regards computational error as stated by the revenue in the appeal the issue do not involve any specific question of law to be agitated upon. Appellant have also pointed out certain computational errors in calculating the amounts to be confirmed. These are matter of factual verification for which we would remand the matter back to the original authority for re- computation of demand if any in accordance with the principles of law.
The applicability of Rule 6 (3) by treating the 34 services as has been held by the Commissioner as common input services for providing the exempted and taxable services of brand promotion - the present case is not for determination of common input services, but revenue needs to identify those services which have been exclusively used for providing the taxable service and those which have been used for management of investments.
Undisputedly appellants are engaged in providing the brand promotion service by promoting the brand name of TATA. They have availed CENVAT credit in respect of various services used in their activities of brand Promotion.
Extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- The extent period of limitation is not available to the revenue as the ingredient as required for invoking the extended period are not available in the present case, it is held that against penalties imposed on the appellant under Rule 15 (3) or 15 (4) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 as applicable during the relevant period read with Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 cannot be sustained.
Since the matter needs to be remanded back to original authority for taking into account the observations made, the liability to interest will come only on the redetermined amount - appeal allowed by way of remand.