SHAKTI HORMANN PVT. LTD. Versus CCT, CE&ST, MEDCHAL GST
Service Tax
2018 (12) TMI 426 – CESTAT HYDERABAD – TMI
CESTAT HYDERABAD – AT
Dated:- 4-12-2018
APPEAL No. E\/30502\/2018 – A\/31495\/2018
Service Tax
Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial)
\nShri Karan Talwar, Advocate for the Appellant.
\nShri Moin. Anwar, Asst. Commissioner\/AR for the Respondent.
\nORDER
\nPer: Mr. M.V. Ravindran
\n1. This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No. HYD-EXCUS-MD- AP2-0228-17-18-CE, dated 25.01.2018.
\n2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are appellant herein is the manufacturer and sale of steel doors and also provides taxable services; is engaged in trading of hardware items. Appellant availed CENVAT credit of common input services as also input services and inputs; had not availed CENVAT credit of service tax paid on services utilised for exempted services and reversed the CENVAT credit attributable to trade activity based upon the turnover as provided under Rule<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n ppellate authority also disposed of the appeal upholding the view of the adjudicating authority. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n ns made by both sides, I find that there is no dispute as to the fact that appellant is eligible to avail CENVAT credit of various input services; has maintained separate accounts for the services which are received exclusively for exempted services; that they are undertaking trading activity for which common services were received. Appellant during the period in question i.e. March 2012 to March 2015 had reversed the CENVAT credit, attributable to the trading activity (exempted services) on a mathematical formula which was followed by him which is the turnover of the trading activity of the total turnover multiplied by CENVAT credit availed on common input services, that every month they have been filing the returns with the authorities giving all the details of such reversals; that many audits have taken place in the factory premises and only in subsequent audit, had brought out this anomaly. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n dutiable final products or in providing output service and the quantity of input meant for use in the manufacture of exempted goods or services and take CENVAT credit only on that quantity of input or input service which is intended for use in the manufacture of dutiable goods or in providing output service on which service tax is payable.” = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n They have produced Chartered Accountant certificates before the learned Commissioner, however, out of above five appeals, only in one case the Commissioner has caused a factual enquiry and has stopped the proceedings. It is not understood as to why such an enquiry was not conducted in respect of other show-cause ST\/1252\/2010; ST\/1721\/2011; ST\/1700-3466\/2012; & ST\/21676\/2014 12 notices. Understandably, the appellants are a big entity spread over different countries and different places in India as there is no prescribed manner for maintenance of records under CENVAT Credit Rules, the records maintained by the appellants have to be accepted as records for the purpose of observing the conditions of CENVAT Credit Rules. Moreover, we find that the Chartered Accountant has given a categorical certificate that the appellants are maintaining separate records and have been making reversals of the balance amounts at the end of every month.” = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n rows light that appellant has chosen a way of maintaining its record which enabled it to substantially allocate the cenvat credit of service tax suffered by the departments in Table-C and partly to the department in Table-B. It has complied to the provisions of sub-rule (2) of Rule 6. Once the conduct of the appellant in the manner indicated by the material facts stated above is very clear because of the proportionality of the credits allocated, due to its division of the department and maintenance of records, there cannot be any presumption by Revenue that the appellant's case falls under Rule 6 (3) of CCR 2004. It is also apparent from record that the order passed by the Authority below is unreasonable for the reason that as against credit of Rs. 6,66,423\/- allocated to the department in Table- B which provided exempted service, disallowance of entire credit of Rs.1,11,07,075\/- allocated to Departments in Table-A providing taxable service is contrary to the principal of proportio<\/p>\n = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" SHAKTI HORMANN PVT. LTD. Versus CCT, CE&ST, MEDCHAL GSTService Tax2018 (12) TMI 426 – CESTAT HYDERABAD – TMICESTAT HYDERABAD – ATDated:- 4-12-2018APPEAL No. E\/30502\/2018 – A\/31495\/2018Service TaxMr. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) Shri Karan Talwar, Advocate for the Appellant. Shri Moin. Anwar, Asst. Commissioner\/AR for the Respondent. ORDER Per: Mr. M.V. Ravindran 1. This appeal is … Continue reading “SHAKTI HORMANN PVT. LTD. Versus CCT, CE&ST, MEDCHAL GST”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-15425","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15425","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=15425"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15425\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=15425"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=15425"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=15425"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n3. Ld. Counsel after drawing my attention to the facts of the case submits that the issue is covered by the decisions of the Tribunal in the case of Sify Technologies Ltd. vs. CST, Chennai [2016-TIOL-911- CESTAT], Sanjay Automobile Engineering Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, Pune-III [2016-TIOL-1314-CESTAT-MUM] and Trans Asian Shipping Services Pvt. Ltd. [2018(9) TMI 922-CESTAT-Bangalore]. It is his submission that the first appellate authority has tried to deviate\/distinguish the judgment of the Tribunal in the case of Sify Technologies Ltd. only on the ground that the provisions of Rule 6(2) were worded differentially at that time and used differentially during the period in question in this appeal. He draws my attention to the provisions of Rule 6(2) which is to be interpreted in the case in hand. He would submit that they are covered by the provisions of Rule 6(2). Further, it is his submission tha<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n6. Relevant provisions of Rule 6 which is applicable for the period in question, needs to b<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n7. It is seen from the above reproduced provisions that the intention of the Legislature was that a manufacturer or a service provider should not avail the entire CENVAT credit of the service tax paid on common input services and should avail proportionate credit attributable to the taxable output service for which the CENVAT credit Rules provides for maintaining separate accounts. In my view, appellant herein has followed this rule by taking the credit of only an amount which is attributable to the taxable services provided by him and not availing the CENVAT credit of the input services which are attributable to the trading activity. By availing <\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\nIn the case of Sify Technologies Limited, the issue i<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n