2011 (6) TMI 324 - AT - Service Tax

Tribunal rules appellants eligible for exemption after reversing wrongly availed credit. /2006-ST

M/s. Khyati Tours & Travels Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Ahmedabad

M/s. Khyati Tours & Travels Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Ahmedabad - 2011 (24) S.T.R. 456 (Tri. - Ahmd.) Issues:1. Whether the appellants correctly availed abatement of service tax under Notification No. 01/2006-ST.2. Whether the appellants fulfilled the conditions for availing abatement along with cenvat credit.3. Whether the reversal of wrongly availed modvat credit by the appellants affects their eligibility for the benefit under Notification No. 01/2006-ST.Analysis:1. The appellants were providing Rent-a-cab services and availed abatement of 60% under Notification No. 01/2006-ST. However, they also utilized cenvat credit, which was a condition for availing the abatement. A show cause notice was issued demanding service tax of Rs. 44,162/- for not fulfilling the conditions laid down in the notification.2. The appellants contended that they had initially availed the wrong modvat credit, but subsequently reversed it along with interest, effectively nullifying the credit taken. The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected this argument, leading to the present appeal. The Tribunal referred to various judicial decisions, including the case of Om Shanti Travels, Ahmedabad, to establish that the reversal of wrongly availed credit with interest had the legal effect of no credit being availed by the appellants.3. The Tribunal cited the case of M/s. Hello Minerals Water Private Limited vs. UOI, where it was held that the subsequent reversal of modvat credit amounts to non-taking of credit, making the assessee eligible for exemption. This decision was based on earlier rulings by the Tribunal and the Supreme Court. The Tribunal further referenced a judgment in the case of CST, Ahmedabad vs. M/s. Amola Holdings Private Limited, where the reversal of modvat credit was deemed as non-availment of credit, making the appellant eligible for the benefit under Notification No. 01/2006-ST.4. Considering that the appellants had reversed the credit along with interest, the Tribunal concluded that they were eligible for the benefit under the notification. Consequently, the impugned order demanding service tax and imposing penalties was set aside, and the appeal was allowed in favor of the appellants. The Tribunal also disposed of the stay petition in light of its decision.