Interest on delayed property payments deemed compensation for loss, not taxable service under Rule 6(1)(3)

CESTAT ruled that interest received by appellant on delayed payments for flats/villas/shops constitutes compensation for loss, not consideration for taxable service. The tribunal held that penal interest clauses safeguard commercial interests and deter delayed payments rather than representing additional taxable activity. Since appellant provided only construction services, no Cenvat Credit reversal was required under Rule 6(1)(3) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The show cause notice was deemed frivolous and void, with the impugned order set aside and appeal allowed.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the interest received on delayed payments constitutes an exempted service under Rule 2(e) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.
2. Whether the appellant is liable to reverse Cenvat credit under Rule 6(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.
3. Whether the imposition of penalty is justified.

Summary:

Issue 1: Interest on Delayed Payments as Exempted Service
The department contended that the interest received by the appellant on delayed payments from customers is an exempted service under Rule 2(e) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, and Section 65B(44) of the Finance Act, 1994. However, the Tribunal observed that the definition of "service" under Section 65B(44) does not include interest on delayed payments as it is not an activity carried out by a person for another for consideration. The interest received is considered a condition of the contract for sale of flats/villas/shops and is akin to liquidated damages or compensation for non-compliance with contract terms, not a consideration for a separate service.

Issue 2: Liability to Reverse Cenvat Credit
The department argued that the appellant must reverse Cenvat credit under Rule 6(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, based on Explanation 3 to Rule 6(1), which includes activities not defined as services but using inputs or input services. The Tribunal found that the interest on delayed payments does not constitute an activity performed by the appellant and thus cannot be considered an exempted service. The Tribunal referenced several judicial decisions and CBIC Circulars clarifying that such interest is not for tolerating an act but rather a deterrent for non-compliance.

Issue 3: Imposition of Penalty
The appellant argued against the penalty, citing the interpretational nature of the issue. The Tribunal agreed, noting that the penal interest clauses are safeguards for commercial interests and not considerations for any service. The Tribunal held that the appellant is only rendering the taxable service of construction, and no reversal of Cenvat credit is required.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal set aside the order under challenge, declaring the show cause notice void and based on frivolous grounds. The appeal was allowed, and the appellant was not liable to reverse Cenvat credit or pay any penalties.

[Order pronounced in the open court on 16.05.2024]

---