Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2019 (10) TMI 27

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... lment of CENVAT Credit. 2. On 12.06.2017, being the first hearing of this case on admission, Sri M.V.J. K. Kumar, learned counsel for the Revenue, undertook that no coercive measures would be initiated pursuant to the impugned order. 3. The petitioner is an advertisement booking agency. It books advertising space in print and electronic media for its clients. It is assessed to service tax in this regard. Show-cause notice dated 19.04.2016 was issued to the petitioner by the office of the Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Audit Commissionerate, Hyderabad, in relation to the tax period 01.10.2010 to 31.03.2015 alleging that it had irregularly availed CENVAT Credit on certain ineligible services. The petitioner submitted reply .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... es not include sale of space or advertisement in print media. The CENVAT Credit availed by the petitioner which is in controversy accounts for a sum of Rs. 17,15,489/- only. 7. Rule 6 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 deals with the obligations of a provider of taxable and exempted services. Rule 6(1) states that CENVAT Credit shall not be allowed on inputs/input services exclusively used for providing exempted services. Rule 6(2) provides that if inputs or input services are used for provision of output services which are chargeable to duty or tax as well as exempted services, then separate accounts are to be maintained for receipt, consumption and inventory of inputs and receipt and use of input services and the provider shall take credi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... to explain as to why it should not be directed to pay an amount of 5%, upto 31.03.2012, and 6%, from 01.04.2012, of the value of the exempted services, aggregating to Rs. 3,52,65,241/-. In its reply dated 16.05.2016, the petitioner contended that it was wholly unreasonable on the part of the authorities to expect it to pay over Rs. 3.50 Crore when the total CENVAT Credit availed by it was less than Rs. 1.50 Crore and the actual dispute boiled down to a mere Rs. 17,15,489/-. It relied on case law to support its contention that such an unreasonable result could not be allowed to follow by application of the law. The impugned Order-in-Original however reflects that the second respondent did not even advert to the case law cited before him. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... availed total CENVAT Credit of Rs. 1,41,51,903/-, of which only a small sum of Rs. 17,15,489/- falls within the realm of dispute, is now sought to be mulcted with exorbitant demands by the second respondent. Be it noted that the second respondent ultimately called upon the petitioner to pay Rs. 3,52,65,241/- towards the CENVAT Credit irregularly availed by it, along with interest, apart from a penalty of Rs. 3,52,65,241/-. The second respondent also confirmed the demand for a sum of Rs. 12,75,645/- being the CENVAT Credit irregularly availed on the strength of debit notes along with a penalty for a like sum. A further penalty of Rs. 10,000/- was also imposed for contravention of the provisions of the Finance Act, 1994. 12. The Assistant .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... h the binding case law cited before him while dealing with the issues arising for consideration. This arrogant and arbitrary approach adopted by the second respondent cannot be countenanced. It would therefore not be necessary for the petitioner to go through the motions of a statutory appeal to challenge the same. The contention of the respondents as to the maintainability of the writ petition is therefore rejected. 14. Further, we may reiterate that Rule 6(3) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, merely offers options to an output service provider who does not maintain separate accounts in relation to receipt, consumption and inventory of inputs/input services used for provision of output services which are chargeable to duty/tax as well as .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates