2025 (8) TMI 649 - HC - Service Tax

HC upholds CESTAT ruling validating credit claims under Rule 6(3) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004

Commissioner of CGST South Delhi Versus Verifone India Sales Private Limited

Commissioner of CGST South Delhi Versus Verifone India Sales Private Limited - TMI 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED Whether the demand for service tax and reversal of CENVAT credit under Rule 6(3) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, was correctly upheld for the period February 2010 to 2014-15. Validity and acceptability of Chartered Accountant (CA) certificates submitted to prove non-availment of common credit during the period October 2012 to March 2015. Whether credit availed on the basis of photocopies without original documents was justified and if original invoices were duly submitted to the Department. Applicability of extended period of limitation in the present case given the audit process and statutory compliance by the Respondent. Whether penalties imposed under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 and Rule 15(3) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 were justified. 2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1: Legitimacy of Service Tax Demand and Reversal of CENVAT Credit under Rule 6(3) CCR Legal Framework and Precedents: The demand was raised under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994. Rule 6(3) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 mandates reversal of credit attributable to exempted services. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Commissioner confirmed the demand based on the Show Cause Notice alleging non-reversal of credit on exempted services. The audit findings and SCN covered the period from 2010-11 to 2014-15, with a total demand exceeding Rs. 4.3 crores. The Court noted that the Respondent had reversed proportionate credit for some periods but failed to do so fully for others. Key Evidence and Findings: Audit reports, SCN, and Order-in-Original confirming demand and penalties. The Respondent reversed some credits voluntarily but not all, leading to the confirmed demand. Application of Law to Facts: The Respondent's partial reversal was insufficient under Rule 6(3) CCR, justifying the demand. The Tribunal upheld the demand after considering all facts. Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Respondent argued full reversal for later periods, supported by CA certificates, which was partially accepted by the Tribunal but rejected by the adjudicating authority initially. Conclusion: The demand for service tax and reversal of credit under Rule 6(3) CCR was justified and upheld. Issue 2: Validity and Acceptability of Chartered Accountant Certificates Legal Framework and Precedents: CA certificates are recognized evidence to establish facts relating to financial transactions and compliance, subject to authenticity and absence of forgery. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal held that the CA certificates submitted for the period October 2012 to March 2015 could not be summarily rejected unless proven fake or forged. It emphasized that the certificates were based on audited financial statements, service tax returns, and other relevant records. Key Evidence and Findings: CA certificates certifying that no CENVAT credit was availed on exempted or common input services during the relevant period. The certificates were dated after the original adjudication but were not challenged on grounds of forgery. Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal accepted the CA certificates as valid evidence to establish non-availment of credit on exempted/common services for the specified period. Treatment of Competing Arguments: The adjudicating authority rejected the certificates for being submitted late and for limited period coverage; the Tribunal disagreed, noting no evidence of forgery or falsity. Conclusion: The CA certificates were accepted as valid proof negating the demand for credit reversal for the period October 2012 to March 2015. Issue 3: Credit Availment on Photocopies and Submission of Original Invoices Legal Framework and Precedents: CENVAT Credit Rules require proper documentation, including original invoices, for credit claims. Credit availed on photocopies without originals is generally disallowed unless original documents are produced before the jurisdictional officer. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal noted that the Respondent submitted a letter dated 11.03.2014 to the Range Office claiming original invoices were produced, with an acknowledged receipt stamp dated 12 March 2014. The adjudicating authority had rejected this claim citing lack of identifiable signature and acknowledgment. Key Evidence and Findings: The letter addressed to the Superintendent, Service Tax, with visible receipt stamp. No evidence was produced to show the seal or signature was forged. Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal held that once evidence of submission of original invoices before the jurisdictional officer is established, the claim for credit availed on photocopies should be accepted unless forgery is proven. Treatment of Competing Arguments: The adjudicating authority's rejection was based on procedural grounds; the Tribunal prioritized substantive evidence of submission over procedural deficiencies. Conclusion: The credit availed on photocopies was justified as original invoices were produced and acknowledged, negating the demand for recovery on this ground. Issue 4: Applicability of Extended Period of Limitation Legal Framework and Precedents: Extended period of limitation under Section 73(1) proviso of the Finance Act, 1994 applies in cases of fraud, willful misstatement, or suppression of facts. Audit manuals and procedures guide the audit process and timelines. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal examined the Service Tax Audit Manual, which contemplates comprehensive audit processes over several days. The audit in question spanned 3-4 days in 2012, with records thoroughly reviewed. The Respondent had filed returns regularly, and no evidence of fraud or suppression was found. Key Evidence and Findings: Audit duration and scope, regular filing of returns, absence of fraudulent conduct. Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal held that invocation of the extended period was neither warranted nor substantiated in the facts of the case. Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Department relied on extended limitation; the Tribunal rejected this in light of audit compliance and absence of fraud. Conclusion: Extended period of limitation was not applicable; demand must be confined to the normal limitation period. Issue 5: Justification of Penalties Imposed under Section 78 of the Finance Act and Rule 15(3) CCR Legal Framework and Precedents: Penalties under Section 78 and Rule 15(3) are imposed for failure to comply with provisions relating to service tax and CENVAT credit, including wrongful availment or non-reversal of credit. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The penalties were imposed in proportion to the confirmed service tax demand and credit irregularities. The Tribunal did not find grounds to interfere with the penalty imposition as the demand was upheld. Key Evidence and Findings: Confirmed service tax demand, credit reversal defaults, and credit availed without proper documentation. Application of Law to Facts: Since the demand and credit irregularities were established, penalties were justified as per the statutory provisions. Treatment of Competing Arguments: No specific challenge to penalty quantum was accepted by the Tribunal. Conclusion: Penalties imposed were lawful and justified. Cross-References and Interrelations: The acceptance of CA certificates (Issue 2) directly impacted the quantum of demand under Issue 1 by negating credit reversal for certain periods. The submission of original invoices (Issue 3) affected the penalty and demand related to credit availed on photocopies (Issue 5). The rejection of extended limitation applicability (Issue 4) limited the period for which demand and penalties could be imposed (Issues 1 and 5).