Tribunal sets aside tax demand pre-01.03.2008, cites historical credit use, no tax evasion intent

The appeal was successful as the tribunal set aside the demand for the period before 01.03.2008 and post that date, amounting to Rs. 23,201. The decision highlighted the historical permissibility of using CENVAT credit for service tax under reverse charge mechanism before the relevant amendment. It was determined that there was no intent to evade tax, and the use of CENVAT credit in this context was revenue-neutral. Consequently, the demand for the period from 1st March 2008 onwards was deemed unsustainable, and the appeal was allowed with any necessary reliefs.

---

---

Issues:
Confirmation of demand based on service tax payment under reverse charge mechanism using CENVAT account.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against the confirmation of demand by the authorities alleging that payment of service tax under reverse charge mechanism cannot be made using CENVAT account. The appellant argued that a significant part of the period in question falls before 01.03.2008, when an amendment was introduced prohibiting the use of CENVAT credit for paying service tax under reverse charge mechanism. Referring to the judgment of the Larger Bench in a specific case, it was highlighted that prior to 01.03.2008, the assessee was allowed to utilize CENVAT credit for such payments. The Tribunal's Final Order in a related case also favored the assessee. The appellant contended that even if CENVAT credit was used for service tax payment under reverse charge mechanism, it would be revenue-neutral, and there was no intent to evade tax. On the other hand, the department argued against the appellant's eligibility to use CENVAT credit post-01.03.2008.

The presiding Member considered the submissions from both parties. It was noted that the major period in question fell before 01.03.2008, and the issue had been settled by a Larger Bench decision allowing the use of CENVAT credit for service tax under reverse charge mechanism before the amendment. Therefore, the demand for the period prior to 01.03.2008 was set aside. Regarding the demand for the period post-01.03.2008, amounting to Rs. 23,201, the appellant argued that it was a revenue-neutral situation. The Member agreed that there was no suppression of facts to evade tax, especially considering the contentious nature of using CENVAT credit for service tax under reverse charge mechanism before the amendment. Consequently, the demand for the period from 1st March 2008 onwards was deemed unsustainable, and the impugned order was set aside, allowing the appeal with any consequential reliefs.

In conclusion, the judgment favored the appellant by setting aside the demand for the period prior to 01.03.2008 and also for the subsequent period post-01.03.2008, emphasizing the revenue-neutral aspect and lack of intent to evade tax.

---