Waiver of Pre-deposit Granted for Ineligible Cenvat Credit under Reverse Charge

The Tribunal allowed the stay petitions for the waiver of pre-deposit of amounts confirmed by authorities, relating to the ineligibility of cenvat credit for service tax liability under the reverse charge mechanism. Relying on the precedent set by a High Court judgment, the Tribunal found the appellant had established a prima facie case for the waiver of pre-deposit. Consequently, the applications were allowed, and recovery stayed pending appeal disposal.

---

---

Issues: Stay petitions for waiver of pre-deposit of amounts confirmed by authorities, eligibility of cenvat credit for service tax liability under reverse charge mechanism.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to two stay petitions seeking the waiver of pre-deposit of amounts confirmed by the adjudicating authority and upheld by the first appellate authority, along with interest and penalties. The demand arose due to the appellant's ineligible availing of cenvat credit for discharging service tax liability on Business Auxiliary Services and Business Exhibition Service, which are subject to payment by the assessee under the reverse charge mechanism as per Section 66A of the Finance Act, 1994.

Upon hearing both sides and examining the record, the Tribunal noted that the Revenue's objection to confirming the demand on the appellant was based on the utilization of cenvat credit for discharging service tax liability under Section 66A of the Finance Act, 1994. The Tribunal referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Commissioner of Service Tax, Bangalore vs. Arvind Fashions Limited 2011-TIOL-748-HC-KAR-ST. In this judgment, it was held that when a service recipient discharges the service tax liability as a service provider, they should be treated as a service provider and can utilize the available credit for discharging the service tax liability.

Based on the precedent set by the High Court of Karnataka, the Tribunal found that the appellant had established a prima facie case for the waiver of pre-deposit of the amounts involved. Consequently, the applications for the waiver of pre-deposit were allowed, and the recovery thereof was stayed until the disposal of the appeals. The judgment was dictated and pronounced in court by Mr. M.V. Ravindaran.

---