Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Service tax penalty can’t survive when assessee acted on dept.’s own view of non-taxability: Delhi High Court. *  GST section 74 extended limitation questionable when form 26AS mismatch was already known: Karnataka High Court grants interim relief. *  CGST demand prima facie impermissible after state GST settlement under section 128A: Bombay High Court. *  Supreme Court asks GSTAT to sympathetically consider delay as taxpayers pursued remedy before wrong forum. *  Supreme Court stays Tripura High Court ruling protecting genuine buyers from ITC denial over supplier’s GST default. *  Diary entries alone can’t prove clandestine removal of goods: CESTAT quashes excise penalty on steel trader. *  Customs could investigate preferential tariff claims even before sec. 28DA: Delhi High Court. *  Customs dept. relied on fake AI generated case laws: supreme court quashes Rs. 425.28 crore penalty. *  No GST exemption in affiliation and annual registration charges for admission or conduct Of examinations: GSTAT. *  Mere invoices, cheque payments insufficient to establish genuine movement of goods: GSTAT restores Rs. 43.44 lakh ITC demand. *  Consolidated GST show cause notice covering multiple financial years is not without jurisdiction: Delhi High Court. *  Construction of independent houses on separate plots not taxable as ‘Residential Complex’ without common facilities: CESTAT. *  GST penalty exceeding statutory maximum unsustainable; Allahabad High Court quashes ? 50,000/- penalty after taxpayer filed return and paid late fee. *  GST order against standard chartered bank passed without hearing set aside by Bombay High Court. *  Retracted statements can’t be relied upon without cross-examination: CESTAT quashes gold confiscation. *  Burden to prove misclassification lies on customs department: CESTAT. *  CESTAT quashes Rs. 98 lakh excise demand on clearance of used refractory brick scrap. *  Service tax demand on irrigation works quashed: Karnataka High Court rules sale of goods component not taxable as service. *  GSTAT restores tax and penalty for transporting iron scrap without E-way bill citing intent to evade tax. *  Madras High Court stays GST recovery from directors without opportunity to show cause under section 89. *  Madras high court stays GST recovery notice against directors; finds prima facie case on applicability of section 79(1)(c). *  Procedural lapses can’t justify harsh punishment without serious customs breach: CESTAT quashes customs broker licence revocation. *  Service tax payable on land leasing and sports complex charges: CESTAT. *  Settled customs dispute can’t be reopened through Article 226 challenge to interest liability: Delhi High Court. *  Mere facilitation of customs clearance can’t establish knowledge of smuggling: Madras High Court. *  GST registration cancellation stayed: Allahabad High Court questions 99% ITC utilisation cap under rule 86B. *  Composition scheme lapses automatically on crossing Rs. 1.5 crore turnover: GSTAT. *  Gujarat High Court quashes GST cancellation orders after officer relied on non-existent AI-generated case laws. *  Importers liable for customs duty benefits availed through manipulated scrips: Delhi High Court. *  Procedural E-way bill lapse alone can’t justify penalty where genuine transaction and absence of tax evasion are established: GSTAT.
Subject News *  Documentary evidence dominates probe, further custody unwarranted: mumbai court grants bail in Rs. 22.44 crore customs duty evasion case. *  Business premises can’t remain sealed for non-participation in GST search: Allahabad High Court. *  GST pre-deposit must be refunded proportionately when taxpayer partly succeeds in appeal: Bombay High Court. *  Supreme Court grants 30 days to file GST appeal; keeps pre-deposit issue open due to deposit in parallel CGST proceedings. *  GST demand can’t exceed amount proposed in SCN: Allahabad High Court quashes Rs. 20.47 Crore order. *  Hundreds-of-crores GST demand and heavy 10% pre-deposit no ground to bypass statutory appeal: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Delhi High Court refuses to entertain challenge to gold confiscation due to statutory appeal remedy and unexplained delay. *  Procedural error in customs broker licence inquiry can be rectified through remand: Delhi High Court. *  GSTR-2A mismatch alone can’t justify ITC denial without invoice-wise verification; personal hearing mandatory: GSTAT. *  GST order passed without uploading personal hearing notices violates sec. 75(4): Allahabad High Court. *  TAX EVASION - Sec. 74 GST SCN quashed for not spelling out fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression: Allahabad High Court. *  STPI’s SOFTEX certification and NoC charges taxable as business support services: CESTAT. *  Suspicion can’t replace proof: CESTAT quashes penalty in alleged gold-smuggling operation. *   Limitation runs from communication of order: Madras High Court upholds rejection of delayed GST Appeals. *  Rajasthan High Court quashes GST demand over unsigned show cause notice. *  ITC recovery upheld where supplier failed to deposit GST: Rajasthan High Court. *  Customs commissioner’s empowered to make port trust liable for duty on pilfered goods: Supreme Court. *  Rectification proceedings can’t be used to challenge an uncontested GST assessment through a writ petition: Andhra Pradesh HC. *  GST proceedings against deceased proprietor unsustainable without notice to legal heir: GSTAT. *  Mere availment of ineligible self-assessed ITC doesn’t amount to suppression without evidence of fraud or wilful misstatement: GSTAT. *  Disposal of mining overburden by entity authorised by mining lease holder constitutes taxable service: CESTAT. *  Toll plaza data not mandatory for ITC refund: GSTAT. *  Disputed GST fraud allegations require investigation: Punjab and Haryana High Court makes interim bail absolute in alleged fraud and GST fraud case. *  Non-manufacturer contractor liable to deposit excess excise duty collected from buyer: CESTAT. *  GST order can’t reject taxpayer’s reply as “not satisfactory” without reasons: Madhya Pradesh High Court. *  Uncorroborated statements can’t establish alleged diversion of duty-free goods: CESTAT. *  Erection services were not liable to service tax prior to 10th september 2004: CESTAT. *  Sec. 74 GST notice must spell out statutory ingredients for invoking extended tax demand proceedings: Allahabad High Court. *  No jurisdictional bar under section 6(2)(b) in parallel CGST SGST proceedings: Delhi High Court refuses to bypass GST appeal remedy. *  Madras High Court remits GST demand for fresh adjudication after taxpayer claims it was unaware of SCN following business closure.  

Comments

Print   |    |  Comment

PJ/Case Laws/2012-13/1550

Whether the assessee eligible to avail service tax credit on commission paid to the commission agents?

Case:- C.C.E., Vs. M/s Paras Motors Mfg. Co. & M/s Paras Motors Mfg. Co. Vs CCE.

Citation:- 2013-TIOL-525-CESTAT-AHM

Brief Facts:- The appellant has availed cenvat credit of service tax paid on the commission paid to the commission agents for the sale of their goods. It is also noticed that the appellant is to indicate the said availment of credit in their returns which has been filed with the authorities. The audit party took an objection that appellant is not eligible for such credit of the service tax paid on the commission paid to the commission agents as per the provisions of Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Accordingly, show cause notice was issued which after due process of law was adjudicated and the adjudicating authority confirmed the reversal of the cenvat credit availed of the service tax paid on the commission paid to the commission agents and also directed to pay the interest on the said amount and imposed equivalent amount of penalty under Section 15 of the Cenvat Credit Rules read with the Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Aggrieved by such an order appellant preferred an appeal before the first appellate authority who concurred with the views of the adjudicating authority and upheld the confirmed demands by the department by reducing the penalty 25% if the amount of penalty is paid within 30 days from the receipt of the order in appeal. Thereafter an appeal has been filed by the department against the impugned order only on the ground that the first appellate authority has extended the benefit of partial payment of penalty as per provisions of Section 11AC and their appeal seeks for enhancement of 100% penalty. There is also an Appeal filed by the assessee for setting aside the impugned order which has denied them the cenvat credit of the service tax paid on the commission paid to the commission agents and also filed Cross objection by the assessee against the appeal filed by the Revenue.

Appellant’s Contention:- None appears on behalf of the appellant despite notice but contention of the appellant as their grounds of appeal raised and also from cross objection filed by them is that the cenvat credit availed by them on the service tax paid on the commission paid to the commission agents is eligible as cenvat credit has been upheld by the various decisions of this bench. It is also the contention of the appellant that the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of GTC Industries Ltd. - 2008 (12) STR 468 =(2008-TIOL-1634-CESTAT-MUM-LB)and Coca Cola India Pvt. Ltd. - 2008 (223) ELT 69 =(2007-TIOL-723-CESTAT-MUM)which indicates that any services which are rendered in connection with the business of the assessee, service tax paid on such amount is eligible for availing the cenvat credit. As regards the penalty imposed, it is their claim of the appellant no penalty is imposable as appellant has been filing the returns with the authorities as a manufacturer indicating therein the cenvat credit availed by them and there was no objection to the said such credit till the audit party took a different view.

Respondent’s Contention:- The respondent submit that the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Cadila Healthcare Ltd. in tax appeal No.353 of 2010 and 204 of 2011 = 2013-TIOL-12-HC-AHM-ST has held that service tax paid on the commission paid to an agent is not eligible as cenvat credit. He would submit that the department's appeal is for the enhancement of penalty to 100% as the assessee has not divulged to department that they had availed cenvat credit of the service tax paid on the commission paid to the commission agents. It is also his submission that this suppression/ misstatement of the facts in order to avail ineligible cenvat credit.

Reasoning of Judgment:- Tribunal heard both the parties considered the submissions made at length by the respondent and also perused the records. At the outset, Tribunal finds that as regards the eligibility to avail cenvat credit of the service tax paid on the commission to the commission agents, the same now stands settled by the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Cadila Healthcare Ltd. (supra) wherein their lordships have held that such service tax is ineligible for availment of cenvat credit on this issue, on merit, Tribunal find that the appellant has no case and the appeal to that extent is rejected.

The Tribunal also finds that the appellant is liable to pay the interest on the amount of service tax credit taken by him and utilised during the material period. To that extent also, the appeal of the appellant is rejected.

 

The Tribunal finds in regards the penalty imposed, both the lower authorities have imposed the equivalent amount of penalties on the appellant under Rule 15 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with provisions of Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Tribunal find the strong force in the contentions raised by the appellant in grounds of appeal, as to that during the relevant period, there were decisions which indicated that service tax paid on the commission to the commission agents is eligible for availment of cenvat credit and accordingly appellant availed the cenvat credit. It is also undisputed that the appellant is a manufacturer and was filing regular monthly ER-1 returns to the authorities and indicating therein availment of such cenvat credit. In Tribunal’s view, the action of the appellant in taking the cenvat credit of the service tax to the commission agents could be out of bonafide belief as to eligibility to cenvat credit as it is in relation to the business of manufacturing and selling. Tribunal finds that the said bonafide belief of the appellant cannot be considered as erroneous and that too, to invoke the extended period of limitation for imposition of equivalent amount of penalty. In Tribunal’s view, the appellants have made out a case for setting aside the penalties imposed by the lower authorities. Accordingly, Tribunal set aside that portion of the order which imposes equivalent amount of penalty on the appellant under the provisions of Rule 15 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

The appeals are disposed of as indicated herein above i.e. assessee's appeal allowed partly and department's appeal is rejected and the cross objection filed by the assessee is also disposed of.

Decision:- Appeal party allowed

Comment:-The substance of this case is that the credit availed onservice tax paid on the commission to the commission agents would be liable to reversal of Cenvat credit as per decision of Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Cadila Healthcare Ltd. wherein it has been held that such service tax is ineligible for availment of cenvat credit. However, it is also clear that equal penalty under Section 11AC should not be impossible in view of the bonafide belief of the assessee that credit is admissible.

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Department News


Query

 
PRADEEP JAIN, F.C.A.

Head Office : -

Address :
"SUGYAN", H - 29, SHASTRI NAGAR, JODHPUR (RAJ.) - 342003

Phone No. :
0291 - 2439496, 0291 - 3258496

Mobile No. :
09314722236

Fax No. :0291 - 2439496


Branch Office : -

Address:
1008, 10th FLOOR, SUKH SAGAR COMPLEX,
NEAR FORTUNE LANDMARK HOTEL, USMANPURA,
ASHRAM ROAD, AHMEDABAD-380013

Phone No. :
079-32999496, 27560043

Mobile No. :
093777659496, 09377649496

E-mail :pradeep@capradeepjain.com