9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (5) TMI 1024 - AT - Service TaxReview order passed by the Principal Commissioner - time barred under the limitation period prescribed for review proceedings - Cenvat Credit on service tax paid on canteen housekeeping and horticulture services particularly outdoor catering services under the Cenvat Credit Rules - HELD THAT - The first ground taken by the appellant that the review order is time barred is not sustainable in view of the fact that during the relevant period COVID-19 was there and limitation period was extended by the Government vide Notification No. G.S.R. 418(E) F.No. CBEC-20/06/2020-GST dated 27.06.2020; accordingly this ground does not have force and is decided against the appellant. As regards the other issue that the adjudicating authority in compliance with the remand order of the Commissioner (Appeals) which is an impugned order herein has confirmed the demand of Cenvat Credit amounting to Rs.6, 29, 384/- and has ordered for recovery of the same under Rule 14 of the Cenvat Credit Rules read with Section 11A of the Act. In view of this fact that the adjudicating authority has passed the order in compliance with the remand order of the Commissioner (Appeals) this appeal does not survive and the appellant has to challenge the order of the adjudicating authority before the Commissioner (Appeals). Appeal dismissed.
Issues Presented and Considered
The core legal questions considered in the appeal are:
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis 1. Limitation on Review Order Legal Framework and Precedents: The limitation period for passing a review order under the Central Excise Act and Cenvat Credit Rules is generally three months from the date of receipt of the original order. The appellant contended that the review order dated 18.06.2020 was beyond this period, as the original Order-in-Original was received by the department on 06.02.2020. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal examined the effect of the Government of India's notification dated 27.06.2020 (G.S.R. 418(E)) which extended the limitation period by excluding the period from 20.03.2020 to 30.09.2020 from computation due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Applying this extension, the review order was held to be within the prescribed limitation period. Key Evidence and Findings: The timing of the original order receipt and the review order, coupled with the statutory extension notification, was critical in determining the timeliness of the review order. Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal applied the extension notification to exclude the lockdown period from limitation calculation, thereby validating the review order's timeliness. Treatment of Competing Arguments: The appellant's argument on strict limitation was rejected on the ground of statutory extension. The department's reliance on the extension notification was accepted. Conclusion: The review order was not time barred and the ground of limitation was dismissed. 2. Entitlement to Cenvat Credit on Canteen and Outdoor Catering Services Legal Framework and Precedents: The Cenvat Credit Rules, particularly Rule 3(1) and Rule 2(l), govern the admissibility of input service credit. The appellant sought credit on service tax paid on canteen, housekeeping, and horticulture services. The department challenged the credit on canteen services, especially outdoor catering, citing established precedents. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal referred to the Larger Bench decision in Wipro Limited vs. CCE, which settled the issue of credit on outdoor catering services as inadmissible. Further, the Tribunal noted subsequent judicial affirmations, including the Karnataka High Court and the Supreme Court decisions upholding the denial of credit on outdoor catering services. Key Evidence and Findings: The appellant's claim for credit on outdoor catering services was directly contradicted by authoritative judicial pronouncements. The department relied on these precedents to justify the denial of credit. Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal applied the binding precedents to the facts of the case, concluding that the appellant was not entitled to Cenvat Credit on outdoor catering services. Treatment of Competing Arguments: The appellant's submissions on entitlement to credit were overruled in light of binding judicial precedents. The department's reliance on the Larger Bench and subsequent court decisions was accepted. Conclusion: The appellant was not entitled to Cenvat Credit on outdoor catering services, and the denial of such credit was upheld. 3. Validity of the Remand Order and Maintainability of the Present Appeal Legal Framework and Precedents: The Commissioner (Appeals) remanded the matter for de novo proceedings, directing the appellant to produce relevant records. Subsequently, the adjudicating authority passed a fresh order confirming the demand for inadmissible credit and interest. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal observed that since the remand order was complied with by the adjudicating authority through a fresh order, the present appeal against the remand order had become infructuous. The appellant was required to challenge the fresh order arising from the remand proceedings before the Commissioner (Appeals). Key Evidence and Findings: The fresh order dated 17.12.2024 confirming the demand of Rs.6,29,384/- along with interest was a material development rendering the present appeal redundant. Application of Law to Facts: The principle that an appeal against an order becomes infructuous if the order is complied with and a fresh order is passed was applied. Treatment of Competing Arguments: The appellant's challenge to the remand order was dismissed on procedural grounds, emphasizing the proper forum for challenging the fresh order. Conclusion: The present appeal was dismissed as infructuous, with the appellant directed to challenge the fresh adjudication order. Significant Holdings "During the relevant period, COVID-19 was there and limitation period was extended by the Government vide Notification No. G.S.R. 418(E) dated 27.06.2020; accordingly, this ground does not have force and is decided against the appellant." "The issue of outdoor catering service has been settled by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Wipro Limited vs. CCE. The Tribunal in the case of Toyota Kirloskar Motor Private Limited dismissed the appeal of the assessee with regard to Cenvat Credit on outdoor catering services, which was further upheld by the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court and affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court." "Since the adjudicating authority has passed the order in compliance with the remand order of the Commissioner (Appeals), this appeal does not survive and the appellant has to challenge the order of the adjudicating authority before the Commissioner (Appeals)." Core principles established include the applicability of statutory extension of limitation periods during COVID-19, the binding nature of Larger Bench and Supreme Court decisions on admissibility of Cenvat Credit on outdoor catering services, and the procedural principle that appeals against remand orders become infructuous once compliance leads to fresh orders. Final determinations:
|
