2018 (10) TMI 319 – BOMBAY HIGH COURT – TMI – CENVAT Credit – output service not provided – Whether the service tax paid on inputs such as electricity transmission structure etc., could be utilized to pay service tax on output service, when the Assessee had not provided any output service?
–
Held that:- It is an undisputed fact that the Respondent herein, was granted registration by the Appellant to pay service tax on the broadcasting services being provided by it. Respondent had admittedly discharged the tax on the output services through their office in India – If the contention of the Appellant-Revenue is to be accepted, then the payment made on output service is not payment of service tax, then in such a case, the credit taken stands reversed by payment made on output service.
–
The question of law, as proposed, does not give rise in the present facts to any substantial question of law. Thus, not entertained.
–
Appeal dismissed. – CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NO. 243 OF 2017
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ed under the Finance Act, 1994 for providing taxable output services namely – Broadcasting Services. The Respondent has been availing Cenvat Credit under the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 in respect of its inputs services used for providing broadcasting services. The Respondent has been paying service tax on the broadcasting services as its output services, inter alia, utilizing the Cenvat Credit paid on the inputs services/goods. 5. Revenue was of the view that the Respondent was not providing any output service in India during the period July, 2012 to March, 2014. Thus, on 30th January, 2015, a show cause notice was issued to the Respondent, seeking to deny Cenvat Credit for the period July, 2012 to March, 2014 as it did not provide any output service in India. 6. The Respondent by its reply dated 20th March, 2015 resisted its show cause notice. However, the Commissioner of Service Tax by an order dated 28th August, 2015 confirmed the show cause notice. This, on the ground that the Respon
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
e is to be accepted, then the payment made on output service is not payment of service tax, then in such a case, the credit taken stands reversed by payment made on output service. In support, reliance was placed upon the decision of the its Coordinate Bench in Infosys Technologies Ltd. V/s. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-I 2017 (47) STR 24. Thus, allowed the appeal. 8 We note that the impugned order dated 31st March, 2017 of the Tribunal, inter alia, placed reliance upon the following observations of its Coordinate Bench in the case of Infosys Technologies Ltd. (supra), wherein it was held, as under: …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. Registration under the scheme of Finance Act, 1994 is the acknowledgment of having transacted in a 'taxable service', should such a registrant keep itself out of the purview of the tax net, the obligation to determine liability to tax shifts tot he 'proper officer'. Having registered itse
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
application to the fact of the present case, as it dealt with refund application filed by the Infosys Technologies Ltd., (supra) while in this case, is a demand case, seeking reversal of the Credit. The distinction sought to be made by the Revenue, is in our view, of no consequence. The substance of the issue is entitlement to take Cenvat Credit on the inputs services, when admittedly the tax on the output services has been collected by the Revenue. 10. Therefore, once the Revenue has accepted the order of the Tribunal in the case of Infosys Technologies Ltd. (supra), the distinction pointed out by the Revenue of Infosys Technologies Ltd., (supra), being a case of refund and this a case of demand, is held by us a distinction of no consequence, to decide the issue at hand. 11. Therefore, the question of law, as proposed, does not give rise in the present facts to any substantial question of law. Thus, not entertained. 12. Accordingly, Appeal dismissed. No order as to costs. – Case la
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =