Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2018 (2) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (2) TMI 1258 - AT - Service TaxDemand of interest - whether the respondent is liable to pay interest on Cenvat Credit which was taken by the appellant but reversed subsequently? - Held that: - the issue has come up before the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of CCE, Bangalore Vs. Bill Forge Pvt. Ltd [2011 (4) TMI 969 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT], where it was held that The liability to pay interest would arise only when the duty is not paid on the due date. If duty is not payable, the liability to pay interest would not arise - since the credit which has been taken by the respondents has not been utilized before the same has been reversed, we find no merit in the view of Revenue that interest is payable. Valuation - includibility - various expenses incurred by the respondent towards telephone, insurance, freight, courier etc - Held that: - The fact whether certain services are eligible for Cenvat Credit as input service is to be determined on the basis of definitions in the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. There is no justification for adding the value of such input services in the total assessable value for payment of service tax only for the reason that such Cenvat Credit have been taken. Business Auxiliary Service - target incentives - Held that: - the issue already stands settled in favour of the respondent in the case of Sharyu Motors V/s CST, Mumbai [2015 (11) TMI 229 - CESTAT MUMBAI], in which an identical issue has come up and the Tribunal, where it was held that Service Tax liability confirmed against the appellant on the amount received as incentive for achieving the targets under Business Auxiliary Services is unsustainable and liable to be set aside - demand set aside. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
|