2024 (4) TMI 395 - AT - Service Tax

Appellant wins CENVAT credit dispute for set top boxes after proper compliance with Rule 4 and Rule 9 procedures

CESTAT Hyderabad allowed the appeal regarding CENVAT credit for manufacturing/trading of set top boxes. The appellant maintained proper electronic books ... CENVAT Credit - manufacture or trading of set top boxes - common input services availed - violation of Rule 4 & Rule 9 of CCR - HELD THAT:- The appellant has maintained proper books of accounts in the ordinary course of business in electronic form (tally software), which is permissible under the Service Tax Rules read with Board Circular aforementioned. It is further found that appellants have regularly got their books of accounts audited by a Chartered Accountant and they have regularly filed Audit Reports along with Balance Sheet and Profit & Loss Account before Income Tax department. The appellant has regularly taken Cenvat credit of input service tax in their books of accounts after making payment to the service providers. Such aggregate input service tax, including cess, reflected in the trial balance, being debit balance as on 31st March under the re-grouped account head ‘duties and taxes’. Thus, it appeared that due to reflection of input tax credit under the head ‘duties and taxes’, has created confusion to the Revenue. Accordingly, appellant has taken service tax credit regularly within the prescribed period from the date of invoice as prescribed under Rule 4 read with Rule 9 of CCR, 2004 - there is no dispute raised by the appellant with respect to output tax. The impugned order set aside - appeal allowed. Issues involved:The issue in this appeal is whether the appellant has rightly taken credit of input service tax.Details of the judgment:The appellant, a partnership firm engaged in providing Cable TV service, was found to have not filed regular returns and was issued summons to furnish financial statements and other documents. It was revealed that the appellant was liable to service tax for various services provided. The appellant had maintained regular books of accounts and had paid service tax using Cenvat credit. However, Revenue contended that the Cenvat credit was irregularly taken and utilized, leading to a show cause notice (SCN) being issued. The appellant contested the SCN, emphasizing that they maintained proper records and regularly paid service tax. The Commissioner confirmed the demand raised in the SCN, leading the appellant to appeal before the Tribunal.The Tribunal noted that the appellant had maintained proper books of accounts audited by a Chartered Accountant and had regularly taken Cenvat credit of input service tax within the prescribed period. The confusion arose due to the reflection of input tax credit under a specific account head. The Tribunal held that the appellant had complied with the rules regarding Cenvat credit and set aside the impugned order. The appellant was entitled to consequential benefits.Separate Judgment delivered by the Judges:None.