TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Appellant denied service tax credit pre-2004 payment. Penalty reduced for disclosure.</h1> <h3>AJAY POLY PVT. LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., NOIDA</h3> AJAY POLY PVT. LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., NOIDA - 2011 (22) S.T.R. 535 (Tri. - Del.) , [2011] 33 STT 339 (New Delhi - CESTAT) Issues:1. Availability of service tax credit to the appellant for services received before 10-9-2004 but with payment made after that date.2. Interpretation of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 regarding transitional provisions and eligibility for service tax credit.Analysis:1. The appellant, a manufacturer of refrigerator door gaskets and ferrite magnets, availed Cenvat credit for service tax paid on input services received in August and September 2004. The service tax was paid by the service providers after 10-9-2004, when the payment was received by them. The central excise audit objected to this credit, resulting in its reversal in 2006. The appellant re-credited the amount based on legal advice and informed the department. A show cause notice was issued in 2007 seeking recovery of the credit, interest, and penalty. The dispute centered around whether the appellant was entitled to the credit due to the timing of service receipt and payment.2. The appellant argued that Rule 4(7) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 allowed credit when payment was made to the service provider after 10-9-2004. They also cited Rule 11(1) for unutilized credit earned before 10-9-2004. The department contended that Rule 3(1) restricted credit to services received on or after 10-9-2004. The service tax credit for services pre-10-9-2004 was only available to service providers under Rule 11(1). The Tribunal found that as the services were received before 10-9-2004, the appellant was not entitled to the credit under transitional provisions or Rule 3(1). Despite upholding the credit demand, the penalty was reduced due to the appellant's disclosure, avoiding a charge of suppression of facts.This detailed analysis of the judgment outlines the key issues, arguments presented by both sides, relevant legal provisions, and the Tribunal's decision, providing a comprehensive understanding of the case.
TaxTMI 