2025 (9) TMI 621 - AT - Service Tax

Availment of Cenvat for construction work deemed wrongful but penalty under Section 73(4A) held sufficient; Section 78(1) penalty set aside

Cesare Bonetti India Ltd Versus C.C.E & S.T. -Valsad

CESTAT AHMEDABAD - AT held that availment and utilization of Cenvat credit for construction-related work contract service was wrongful and constituted ... Imposition of penalty on the appellant u/r 15(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 (CCR,2004) read with Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 - availment and utilization of wrong credit - credit on work contract service availed for construction of factory building, which does not fall under the definition of input service - HELD THAT:- Rule 15(3) of the CCR, 2004 prescribes penalty in cases where Cenvat Credit has been taken or utilized wrongly by reasons of fraud, collusion etc., in terms of Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. This Section prescribes penalty where service tax has not been levied or paid or has been short levied or short paid or erroneously refunded by reasons of fraud, collusion etc. Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994 prescribes the methodology for recovery of service tax not levied or paid or short levied or short paid or erroneously refunded from the output service provider. Sub Section 4A of Section 73 talks about specific situation where non-payment or short payment of service tax has been found out during the course of any audit, investigation or verification but true and complete details of the transaction are available in specified records. The present matter involved wrong utilization of Cenvat Credit for payment of service tax and since, availment of Cenvat Credit itself was wrong, it effectively turns out to be non-payment or short payment of service tax by the appellant. Further, since the transactions were duly recorded by the appellant in the specified records such as ST-3 returns, the present matter is squarely covered under Section 73 (4A) of the Finance Act, 1994. As the Appellant had already paid the amount along with interest and penalty at the rate of 1% per month, in terms of the provisions of section 73(4A), the matter of the appellant should have been closed without issue of show cause notice. The penalty already deposited by the appellant as per provisions of Section 73(4A) is sufficient to close the matter and there was no need to invoke the provisions of Section 78(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 for levy of equal penalty - the impugned order is modified to this extent. Appeal allowed. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1. Whether Cenvat credit availed on works contract services for construction of a factory qualifies as input service under Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. 2. Whether penalty under Rule 15(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 can be imposed where inadmissible Cenvat credit has been availed and utilised. 3. Whether the appellant's payment of the disputed Cenvat credit with interest and payment of penalty at the rate of 1% per month under Section 73(4A) (now omitted w.e.f. 14.05.2015) precludes issuance of a show cause notice and relieves the assessee from further penalty under Section 78. 4. Whether extended period of limitation is invokable where the ST-3 returns did not have columns for break-up of Cenvat credit and whether bona fide belief or absence of mens rea precludes invocation of extended period and/or penalty. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1: Entitlement to Cenvat credit on works contract services for construction of a factory Legal framework: Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 defines 'input service' and expressly excludes the service portion in execution of a works contract and construction services used for construction or execution of a building or civil structure. Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal observed that works contract service used for construction of a factory squarely falls within the exclusion in Rule 2(l). Admissibility of credit therefore fails as a matter of direct application of the rule. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - inadmissibility of Cenvat credit on works contract/construction of a factory under Rule 2(l) is affirmed. Conclusion: Cenvat credit availed on works contract services for construction of the factory was not admissible and denial of credit by the authority was correct. Issue 2: Imposition of penalty under Rule 15(3) CCR, 2004 read with Section 78 Finance Act, 1994 for availment/utilisation of wrong credit Legal framework: Rule 15(3) CCR, 2004 prescribes penalty where Cenvat credit has been taken or utilised wrongly by reason of fraud, collusion, wilful mis-statement, suppression of facts, or contravention of provisions, referring to penalty provisions of Section 78. Section 78(1) prescribes penalty equal to the amount of tax not levied/paid where such reasons exist, with provisos reducing penalty to 50% where true and complete details are available in specified records and further to 25% in certain circumstances. Precedent treatment: The parties relied on various decisions addressing mens rea, bona fide belief, and applicability of reduced penalties under Section 73(4A) and Section 78; the Tribunal considered those lines of authority in context but grounded decision on statutory text. Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal recognized that Rule 15(3) activates Section 78 where the mis-utilisation arises from the enumerated culpable causes. However, it found that the present case involved utilization of wrong credit which effectively constitutes non-payment or short payment of service tax. Crucially, the Tribunal noted that transactions were recorded in specified records (ST-3 returns) and the assessee had paid the amount with interest. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - penalty under Section 78 (equal penalty) is not mandatorily leviable where the conditions of Section 73(4A) are satisfied (i.e., true and complete details are available and payment including interest and 1% per month penalty has been made before service of notice), even if Rule 15(3) prima facie applies; the penalty paid under Section 73(4A) suffices to close the matter and obviates invocation of Section 78 equal penalty. Conclusion: Although the credit was wrongly availed/utilised, the prior payment of tax, interest and penalty under Section 73(4A) (when applicable) meant there was no need to invoke Section 78(1) equal penalty; the equal penalty imposed was not sustainable and the appeal was allowed to that extent. Issue 3: Effect of payment under Section 73(4A) - preclusion of show cause notice and further penalty Legal framework: Section 73(4A) (text reproduced in judgment) provided that where non-payment/short payment is found during audit/investigation but true and complete details are in specified records, the person may pay tax with interest and penalty equal to 1% per month (subject to cap) before service of notice and inform the officer, upon which no notice under subsection (1) shall be served and proceedings in respect of the paid amount shall be deemed concluded. Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal found the facts fit within Section 73(4A): (a) the wrong utilisation resulted in short payment/non-payment of service tax; (b) transactions were recorded in specified records (ST-3 returns); and (c) the assessee had paid the disputed credit amount with interest and paid penalty at the rate of 1% per month. On this basis, the Tribunal held the matter should have been closed without issuance of show cause notice in respect of the paid amount and that the penalty already deposited under Section 73(4A) sufficed. Precedent Treatment: The appellant relied on authorities supporting closure upon payment under Section 73(4A); Tribunal accepted the statutory scheme rather than distinguishing those decisions. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - payment under Section 73(4A) (when its conditions are met and payment is made before service of notice) precludes service of show cause notice and bars imposition of further penalty under Section 78 in respect of the amount so paid; the amount paid under Section 73(4A) is sufficient to close proceedings. Conclusion: The appellant's payment under Section 73(4A) entitled it to closure of proceedings as to the paid amount, and invocation of Section 78(1) equal penalty was therefore unnecessary and improper. Issue 4: Extended period of limitation, bona fide belief and absence of mens rea Legal framework: Extended period and heavier penalties are linked to suppression, fraud, or wilful mis-statement; bona fide belief and availability of true and complete records are relevant to mitigation and applicability of reduced penalty under Section 73(4A) provisos. Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal noted arguments on bona fide belief and absence of mens rea and that ST-3 returns lacked columns for break-up of Cenvat credit. However, since the primary disposition turned on applicability of Section 73(4A) and payment thereunder, the Tribunal did not need to further decide extended period or mens rea for purpose of invoking Section 78 in relation to the paid amount. The adjudicating authority's invocation of extended period on the ground of absence of break-up in ST-3 was not treated as determinative where specified records nevertheless contained true and complete transaction details for Section 73(4A) purposes. Ratio vs. Obiter: Obiter - factual findings as to mens rea and limitation were not finally resolved because the decision disposing the appeal on Section 73(4A) grounds rendered detailed adjudication on those points unnecessary in respect of the paid amount. Conclusion: Arguments about extended limitation period, bona fide belief and absence of mens rea did not alter the outcome because the Tribunal concluded closure was warranted by compliance with Section 73(4A); therefore, the imposition of further penalty under Section 78 on the amount already paid could not be sustained. Final Disposition Because the inadmissible credit was recorded in specified records and the appellant paid the disputed credit with interest and penalty at 1% per month as provided by Section 73(4A), the Tribunal held that the matter should have been closed without service of a show cause notice and that the equal penalty under Section 78(1) read with Rule 15(3) was not warranted for the amount already paid; the appeal was allowed to that extent.