2008 (9) TMI 218 - AT - Service Tax

Appellate Tribunal directs fresh adjudication for alleged excess Cenvat credit utilization.

SIFY Technologies Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Service Tax, Chennai

The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, CHENNAI allowed the appeal by way of remand, directing the Commissioner to conduct a fresh adjudication of the dispute ... Non application of mind by Commissioner - Commissioner, after giving go-by to the case made out by the department in the SCNs and the case made out by the appellants in reply thereto, arbitrarily arrived at a finding that the appellants had utilized excess credit - Commissioner limited the scope of the dispute by taking the view that it was a case of excess utilization of credit that was permitted u/r 6(3) on input service alone and confirmed demand, interest and penalties – matter remanded Issues:1. Appeal against Commissioner's order on three show-cause notices for service tax demand.2. Allegations of excess utilization of Cenvat credit.3. Dispute regarding Cenvat credit utilization and application of rules.4. Lack of examination of submissions by adjudicating authority.5. Appeal for remand and fresh adjudication.Analysis:1. The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, CHENNAI was made against the Commissioner's order on three show-cause notices (SCNs) demanding service tax. The SCNs raised demands for service tax, interest, and penalties for different services provided by the appellants during specific periods.2. The main contention in the appeal was the allegation of excess utilization of Cenvat credit by the appellants. The Commissioner's order demanded a significant amount as service tax, interest, and penalty based on the alleged misuse of Cenvat credit by the appellants, which was disputed by them in their replies to the SCNs.3. The appellants argued that they had not utilized the Cenvat credit in contravention of the rules and had maintained separate accounts for input services used for taxable and exempted services. They provided detailed statements showing the month-wise availment and utilization of input service/capital goods credit to support their case.4. The Tribunal noted that the adjudicating authority did not adequately examine the submissions made by the appellants in response to the SCNs. It was observed that the dispute between the revenue department and the assessee was not thoroughly addressed, leading to an oversimplified conclusion by the Commissioner regarding the alleged excess utilization of Cenvat credit.5. In light of the lack of proper examination and consideration of the submissions and evidence, the Tribunal allowed the appeal by way of remand. The Tribunal directed the Commissioner to conduct a fresh adjudication of the dispute, taking into account the contentions raised by the appellants and the statements submitted regarding Cenvat credit utilization. The Commissioner was instructed to consider any relevant case law or circulars presented by the appellants during the fresh proceedings.