Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Home Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles News Highlights
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Superfil Products Pvt. Ltd. Versus Principal Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai-I

2017 (4) TMI 953 - CESTAT CHENNAI

CENVAT credit - irregular availment - Department alleged that as the service provider of security service discharged 100% of the tax liability, they have paid in excess 75% of service tax. Further, since liability to pay 75% has not been discharged by the appellant, that amounts to non-payment of service tax to that extent and hence they have appeared to have availed excess cenvat credit - Held that: - There could no dispute that service tax leviable has been fully paid. This fact will therefore .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ER The facts of the case are that appellants are a manufacturing unit. On verification of records, it appeared to the department that appellants had wrongly availed credit of service tax paid on security services during the period July 2012 to August 2013. For this belief, department relied upon Notfn No.30/2012-ST dt. 20.06.2012 which ordains that provider of said services, if provided to business activity registered as a body corporate, are liable to only 25% of the service tax payable and ser .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ppellant, inter alia, proposing recovery of allegedly wrongly availed cenvat credit of ₹ 53,094 during July 2012 to August 2013 along with interest liability thereon and imposition of penalties under relevant provisions. These proposals were confirmed by the original authority and also upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide impugned order dt. 12.07.2016. 2. Aggrieved, appellants are before this forum. 3. Today when the matter came up for hearing, Shri N. Viswanathan, Ld. Advocate, appea .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

State Electronic Corporation Vs CC Kochi 1996 (84) ELT 44 (Tribunal) which inter alia held that modvat credit is to be allowed as per the amount of duty indicated in the duty paying documents and whether the duty short paid or paid in excess is not relevant. (ii) Final Order No.40510/2017 dt. 17.03.2017 which followed jurisdictional High Court decision in CCE Vs 2006 (202) ELT 753 (Mad.) and held that when input duty paid that has gone into the process not disputed by Revenue manufacturer-appell .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ibble is that such tax has not been discharged in the matter as required by the notification No.30/2012-ST dt. 20.06.2012 and as per the ratio of 75 : 25 by service recipient and service provider respectively, hence appellant will not be eligible to take 100% credit. I fail to see any reason in such a proposition. The said notification only provided for distribution of tax liability between service recipient and service provider. However, it does not anywhere proclaim that in case 100% tax liabi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Forum
what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version