TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (6) TMI 903
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....existing Rule 6(3)(c) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The Commissioner, vide OIO, 16/ANS-16/Spice/ Th-I/2012 dated 29-1-2013, held that the balance 80% of the credit which is not utilisable prior to 01.06.2007 shall lapse. Commissioner relies upon judgment of Gujarat Narmada Fertilisers (2009) 240 ELT (661) and held that SC judgment will override the circular, F. No. 137/203/2007 CX-4 dated 01.10.2007, in view of Ratan Melting and Wire Industries reported in 2008 (231) ELT 22. Hence, this appeal. 2. Shri S.S. Gupta, Chartered Accountant, appearing for the Appellants, submits that Rule 6(1) of CCR, 2004 is substantive Rule and provides that the manufacturer or provider of output service is not entitled for the credit of such quantity of input or input services which is used in the manufacture of exempted goods or exempted service except in the circumstances mentioned in Sub-Rule (2) of said Rules. The said Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 6 provides for maintenance of separate records in respect of input, input services substantiating use of input and input services for taxable and exempted services. The Sub-Rule (3) of Rule 6 provides that in case separate accounts are not maintained t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... respect of Rule 6(5) of CCR, 2004 which also has a non obstante clause, in the case of (i). CCE, Goa Vs V.M. Salgaonkar & Bros. Pvt Ltd. 2008 (10) STR 609 (Tri. - Mumbai) (ii). Lemon Tree Hotels Pvt Ltd. Vs CST, Chennai 2018 (13) GSTL 305 (Tri. - Chennai) (iii). Idea Cellular Ltd Vs CCE, Rohtak 2009 (16) STR 712 (Tri. - Del.) This was clarified vide circular F. No. 137/203/2007 CX-4 dated 01.10.2007. The Bombay High Court in the case of CCE, Thane-I Vs Nicholas Piramal (India) Ltd. 2009 (244) ELT 321 (Bom.) while interpreting the provisions of Rule 6 has held that plain meaning of the language used in the Rule shall be adopted if the same is unambiguous. 2.2. Learned Chartered Accountant submits that the combined reading of Rule 3 and Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rule, 2004 ensures fulfillment of provisions of Section 94(eee) of Chapter V of Finance Act 1994. Rule 3 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, provides for the eligibility and states that the manufacturer or provider of output service shall be allowed to take credit on any input or input services received by him. In this case, there is no dispute that the appellants have provided taxable output service....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ation by Court. 2.5. Learned Chartered Accountant submits also that the issue is settled by Mumbai bench of the tribunal in the case of DHL Logistics Pvt Ltd 2015 (38) STR 620(Tri- Mumbai); it was held that Prior to 1-4-2008, restriction was only utilization of credit and not taking of credit per se; credit taken could be carried forward and accumulated; unutilised credit on account of restriction on utilisation under Rule 6(3)(c) of the Cenvat credit Rules, 2004 will not lapse and further after removal of cap of 20% w.e.f. 1-4-2008, appellant eligible to utilize the credit. In the following cases also, Tribunal held that accumulated unutilised credit on account of restriction on utilisation under Rule 6(3)(c) of the Cenvat credit Rules, 2004 will not lapse. • Mumbai International Airport Pvt Ltd 2014 (33) STR 308 (Tri - Mumbai) • Federal Express Corporation 2014 (36) STR 375 (Tri - Mumbai) Thus, once the appellant started to provide all the taxable services from 01.06.2007, restriction under Rule 6(3)(c) relating to utilisation will not apply. Tribunal in the case of Grasim Industries: 2007 (208) E.L.T. 336 (Tri. - LB) has held that the credit is no....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ustrial Development Corporation Ltd: 2016 (44) STR 642 (Tri - Del), held that mere non-disclosure of facts to department is not misstatement. Burden is on Revenue to prove allegation of wilful misstatement; onus is not on assessee to prove its bona fides. Further Supreme Court held, in the case of Continental Foundation Joint Venture: 2007 (216) ELT 177 (SC), that mere omission to give correct information is not suppression of facts unless it was deliberate to stop the payment of duty. The appellant was under bona fide belief that when there is no lapsing provisions in the Rules, appellant can carry forward and utilised the credit in full in view of ratio of cases cited above and the CBEC circular dated 21.11.2008. As there was no mala fide intention, extended period of limitation not invokable in view of the Cosmic Dye Chemical: 1995 (75) ELT 721 (SC) and Chemphar Drug and Liniments: 1989(40) ELT 276 (SC). 2.9. Learned Chartered Accountant also submits, without prejudice to the issues raised above, issue relates to the interpretation of provisions and therefore extended period of limitation should not be invoked. Appellant relies upon the following judgments. (i). Cont....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed in the manufacture of goods cleared without payment of duty under the provisions of that Rule." 3.1. Learned AR further submits that Rule 6(1) clearly prescribes that such credit cannot be allowed as has been used for providing exempt services. Rule 6(2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules accordingly prescribes that separate account should be maintained for the quantity of input and input service meant for use in providing output service and exempt service. It clearly prescribes that credit only of the input used for providing output service on which service tax is payable can be availed. However, it was submitted, that there may be conditions where it was practically not possible for a manufacturer or a provider of taxable service to maintain separate accounts. Accordingly, a procedural facility has been granted under Rule 6(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules where it was not possible for manufacturers / service providers to maintain separate accounts and reverse actual amount used for providing exempt services / exempt goods. A detailed reading of Rule 6(3) reveals that it provides that in respect of certain goods, Cenvat credit was required to be reversed. Rule 6(3)(b) provided that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... "8. While interpreting a statute the court should try to sustain its validity and give such meaning to the provisions which advance the object sought to be achieved by the enactment. The court cannot approach the enactment with a view to pick holes or to search for defects of drafting which make its working impossible. It is a cardinal principle of construction of a statute that effort should be made in construing the different provisions so that each provision will have its play and in the event of any conflict a harmonious construction should be given. The well-known principle of harmonious construction is that effect shall be given to all the provisions and for that any provision of the statute should be construed with reference to the other provisions so as to make it workable. A particular provision cannot be picked up and interpreted to defeat another provision made in that behalf under the statute" Similarly, Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of UOI Vs. Intercontinental Consultants and Technocrats Pvt Ltd. [2018(10) GSTL 401(SC)], held ( para 26, 27, 28) that; "26. It is trite that Rules cannot go beyond the statute. In Babaji Kondaji Garad, this Rul....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e circular. A list of circulars, serial number wise, was submitted which does not reflect the said purported circular as having been issued by CBIC. In any case the said purported circular could not have been a circular as it seems to be answering a query raised by a field formation, and it is not known as to who had approved the issuance of the said purported circular. It appears to be just a letter and not a circular duly approved by the Government. It was further submitted that to establish the veracity of the said purported circular, a reference was sent to the Commissioner Service Tax, CBIC and Under Secretary, CBIC vide their letter dated 28..12.2018 informed that as the above said file is not traceable the authenticity of the subject letter cannot be confirmed by them. It is pertinent to note that the letter from CBIC refers to the said communication as a letter and not as a circular. He therefore submits that the case laws relied upon by the appellants are per in curium as they have not considered the relevant provisions of law but had solely relied upon the purported circular issued by CBIC. As submitted above the authenticity of the letter, which is referred to as circula....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re, the appellant can utilize the entire credit. The restriction placed under Rule 6(3)(c) for utilizing only 20% of the credit for payment of output service was removed from 1-4-08. Even after 1-4- 08, no amendment was made in rule 3(4) restricting utilization of credit of opening balance as on 31-03-2008. 4.2. Chartered Accountant, appearing for the Appellants also submits that the copy of the circular as extracted from the website of www.taxmanagmentindia.com is attached; it is evident from the said circular that it is issued by Shri Gautam Bhattacharya, Commissioner of Service Tax; this circular bears instruction No .F. No.137/172/2008- CX.4 issued from file F. No. 137/172/2008-CX.4 dated 21-11-2008; Madurai Commissionerate has issued Trade Notice No. 14/2009 dated 13-3-2009, Service Tax No. 6/2009 based on the said instruction; the said circular also relies upon the Boards letter/ instruction F. No.137/72/2008-CX.4; if such instruction/circular did not exist, Madurai Commissionerate could not have issued a trade notice. In view of Supreme Court's interpretation of provisions of section 119 of Income Tax Act, 1961, in the case of Azadi Bachao Andolan And Anr. 2004-(09....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on is made without prejudice to earlier submission that balance credit, as on 1-6-2007, is not required to be reversed as the appellants have complied with the provisions of Rule 6(3). He further submits that if the intention of the legislature was to disallow the credit attributable to exempted service from 10-9- 2004, then they would have provided the same as they did after 1-4- 2008; it cannot be presumed that the legislature was not aware of the fact that balance credit will be utilized by the service provider. Even w.e.f. 1-4-2008, no provision was bought for lapsing of credit which remained as balance with service provider as on 1-4-2008. 4.6. Whether the appellant could avail of the full Cenvat, and utilize 20% of the same while carrying forward the balance 80%, under erstwhile Rule 6(3)(c) of Cenvat Credit Rules, even though they were providing both taxable as well as exempted services. The submission of the appellants is that they were entitled to avail of the full Cenvat and the restriction was only on utilization of the same to the extent of 20% of the Cenvat Credit availed. It is not in dispute that M/s. Idea Cellular were providing taxable as well as exempt / non-ta....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....antity of input or input service which is intended for use in the manufacture of dutiable goods or in providing output service on which service tax is payable. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rules (1) and (2), the manufacture or the provider of output service, opting not to maintain separate accounts, shall follow either of the following conditions, as applicable to him, namely:- (a) If the exempted goods are ...... (b) .... (c) The provider of output service shall utilise credit only to extent of an amount not exceeding twenty per cent of the amount of service tax payable on taxable output service. Explanation I - The amount mentioned in conditions (a) and (b) shall be paid by the manufacturer or provider of output service by debiting the CENVAT credit or otherwise. Explanation II - If the manufacturer or provider of output service fails to pay the said amount, it shall be recovered along with interest in the same manner, as provided in Rule 14, for recovery of CENVAT Credit wrongly taken. ............... Rules 6 of CENVAT Credit Rules as on1.4.2008 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rt of the financial year. Explanation II- For removal of doubt, it is hereby clarified that the credit shall not be allowed on inputs and input services used exclusively for the manufacture of exempted goods or provision of exempted service. 5.1. A plain reading of the above provisions indicate that while Rule 6(1) provides that the manufacturer or provider of output service is not entitled for the credit of such quantity of input or input services which are used in the manufacture of exempted goods or exempted service except in the circumstances mentioned in the sub-rule (2) of the said Rules. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 6 provides for maintenance of separate records in respect of inputs, input services substantiating use of input and input services for taxable and exempted goods or services. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 6 provides that in case separate accounts are not maintained, the manufacturer or provider of services shall follow either of the conditions stipulated in sub-rule (3) of Rule 6. It is pertinent to note that after the amendment the only change that could be seen in respect of sub-rule (3) is to the extent of payment in respect of exempted goods produced or exempted s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed and taxable services, there is no provision wherein it can be said that the balance of credit shall lapse. As we found above there is no provision which provides that credit availed earlier shall lapse and cannot be utilised with effect from 1.6.2007. Utilisation of credit is governed by provisions of sub-rule (4) of Rule 3 of CENVAT Credit Rules, which we find in the instance case to have been complied with. 5.3. While the learned AR for the Department has submitted that Madras High Court in the case of Ruchika Global Interlinks (supra) has interpreted that restriction on utilisation shall amount to restriction on availment, the learned counsel for the appellants submits that the issue before Hon'ble Madras High Court was in relation to use of input services for trading activity and not in the course of provision of an exempted service. He submits that as held by Bombay High Court in the case of Industrial Credit and Investment Corporation (supra) the ratio of a case can be followed only when the matter was directly on the issue, the issue needs to have been decided and the matter has been decided by giving reasons. We find that the questions of law framed and answered in th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ove, there is no provision in the Rules for the credit availed to lapse once the conditions therein have been fulfilled. Therefore, we find that despite the circular the issue is clear. We find that this Bench in the case of DHL Logistics Pvt. Ltd. (supra) has held that: "5.1 As regards the denial of Cenvat credit to the extent of 2.85 crore, on the ground that the appellant did not maintain separate accounts towards utilization of credit in respect of both taxable and exempt services and also utilization of credit in excess of 20%, it is noted that the cap of 20% is applicable on the service tax payable and not on the service tax credit actually availed. What is restricted is only utilisation of the credit and not taking the credit per se; the credit taken could be carried forward. When the cap was removed on 1-4-2008, the appellant was eligible to utilise the credit also. In the present case what is involved is the utilisation of credit in excess of 20% of the tax payable during the impugned period which was permitted. Therefore, utilising the credit in excess of the limit would attract only interest liability. The entire service tax itself cannot be denied to t....