Tribunal Upholds Taxability of Contract Bottling, Reverses Penalties

The Tribunal rejected the contention of limitation regarding the show cause notice, upheld the taxability of contract bottling under Business Auxiliary Service, found the appellants ineligible for exemption under Notification No.39/2009-ST due to availing CENVAT credit, directed the reversal of CENVAT credit to allow the exemption, set aside penalties under Section 78 but upheld those under Section 77. The appellants were allowed to appeal on the condition of reversing CENVAT credit and paying interest, with the matter remanded for reevaluation of service tax liability.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Extended period of limitation for issuing the show cause notice.
2. Taxability of contract bottling of alcoholic liquor under Business Auxiliary Service (BAS).
3. Eligibility for exemption under Notification No.39/2009-ST.
4. Reversal of CENVAT credit and its impact on exemption eligibility.
5. Imposition of penalties under Sections 76, 77, and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Extended Period of Limitation:
The appellants argued that the show cause notice (SCN) issued on 29.01.2015 was barred by limitation since an earlier SCN on a different issue was issued on 10.10.2014. The Tribunal found that the two issues raised in the SCNs were distinct and unrelated. The first SCN pertained to the wrong availment of CENVAT credit based on a debit note, while the second SCN concerned the non-compliance with conditions of Notification No.39/2009-ST. The Tribunal held that the extended period of limitation was applicable as the second SCN was issued after further investigations and was not barred by the earlier SCN. Therefore, the contention of limitation was rejected.

2. Taxability of Contract Bottling:
The appellants contended that the activity of contract bottling of alcoholic liquor for human consumption is under the purview of the State Government and should not attract service tax. However, the Tribunal noted that the taxability of contract bottling under BAS had been confirmed by the Delhi High Court in the Carlsberg India case. Although the matter was pending before the Supreme Court, no stay on taxability had been granted. Hence, the Tribunal rejected the appellants’ contention and upheld the taxability of contract bottling under BAS.

3. Eligibility for Exemption under Notification No.39/2009-ST:
The appellants claimed exemption under Notification No.39/2009-ST, which allows exclusion of the value of inputs used in providing the taxable service, provided no CENVAT credit is taken. The Revenue argued that the appellants had availed CENVAT credit on inputs and capital goods, thereby disqualifying them from the exemption. The Tribunal agreed with the Revenue that the appellants had not fulfilled the conditions of the notification, making them ineligible for the exemption.

4. Reversal of CENVAT Credit:
The appellants proposed to reverse the CENVAT credit of Rs. 1,22,93,434/- along with applicable interest, relying on precedents like the Supreme Court's judgment in Chandrapur Magnet Wires and the Allahabad High Court's judgment in Hello Minerals Water. The Tribunal noted that reversal of credit even at the Tribunal stage would make the appellants eligible for the exemption under Notification No.39/2009-ST. The Tribunal directed the appellants to reverse the credit and pay the interest, thereby allowing the exemption and reducing the net service tax liability.

5. Imposition of Penalties:
The appellants argued against the imposition of penalties under Section 78 due to the lack of clarity on the taxability of contract bottling. They agreed to pay penalties under Section 77. The Tribunal, considering the various interpretations and disputes, found that penalties under Section 78 were not justified and should be set aside. However, the Tribunal upheld the penalties under Section 77.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the appeal on the condition that the appellants reverse the CENVAT credit of Rs. 1,22,93,434/- and pay the applicable interest within four weeks. The matter was remanded to the adjudicating authority to confirm the payment of predeposit and interest and to rework the service tax liability after extending the benefit of Notification No.39/2009-ST. The penalties under Section 78 were set aside, but those under Section 77 were upheld. The appeal was allowed on these terms.

---