TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 376X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Service tax on Reverse Charge Mechanism. In term of Rule 2(r) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, the person who is liable to pay the Service Tax is a deemed provider of service. Therefore, by virtue of this provision, since the appellant is undisputedly discharging the Service Tax even though on Reverse Charge Mechanism, he is deemed service provider. The inward transportation on deemed service is discharged is otherwise the input service for the purpose of Cenvat Credit as per the definition of input service under 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules. Therefore, the lower authorities have wrongly denied the Cenvat Credit on this ground - credit allowed. Denial of credit for the reason that invoice of GTA is in the name of Nirma Marketing Enterpris ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lower authority on the following grounds: 1. The credit for the period 20/4/06 to 12/07/2006 is not eligible for the reason that Rule 2(p) was omitted. The explanation to Rule 2(p) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 was omitted by notification 08/2006-CE dated 19.04.2006. Accordingly, the appellant was not output service provider. 2. The service tax on inward GTA was paid by M/s Nirma Marketing Enterprise whereas the credit was availed by the appellant. 3. The credit on inward GTA was availed prior to 01/01/2005 when there was no reverse charge for the purpose of payment of service tax. 2. Shri Amal Dave, Ld. Counsel on behalf of the appellant submits that as regard the credit denied on the ground that explanation to Rule 2(p) was om ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... keting Enterprises, he submits that the appellant and Nirma Marketing Enterprises are two different assessee with independent registration number. Therefore, on the invoices of Nirma Marketing Enterprises credit cannot be extended to the appellant. As regard the limitation, he submits that the aggregate figure of Cenvat Credit was shown in the ST-3 return, the detail of input services provided etc was not shown. Therefore, it was not known to the department whether the credit was correctly availed or otherwise. Therefore, there is suppression of facts. 4. I have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides and perused the records. The denial of credit on the ground that explanation of Rule 2(p) was omitted is absolutely in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant have declared aggregate Cenvat amount in the ST-3 return but individual service wise credit detail is not available in the ST-3 return. The discrepancy was pointed out by the audit. Thereafter only the Show Cause Notice was issued. Prior to audit the fact was not disclosed to the department. Therefore, there is a clear suppression of fact on the part of the appellant. Accordingly, the demand cannot be set aside on account of time bar. The Cenvat credit demand for the time prior to 01/01/2005 is upheld. The adjudicating authority is directed to quantify the eligible Cenvat Credit as per above observation. As per the above discussion, the appeal is partly allowed. (Dictated and Pronounced in the open Court) - - TaxTMI - TMITa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
