News Update

CBIC revises tariff value of edible oils, gold & silverFormer IPS officer Sanjiv Bhatt jailed for 20 yrs for planting drugs to frame lawyerCentre receives Rs 18.5 lakh crore tax revenue upto Feb monthUN says Households waste across world is now at least one billion meals a dayExpert Committee on developing GIFT IFSC as 'Global Finance and Accounting Hub' submits report to IFSCAIndia, China hold fresh dialogue for complete disengagement on Western borders: MEADefence Production issues notification for re-organisation of DGQAThakur says India is prepared for 2036 OlympicsCBDT substitutes Form in ITR-5EV Revolution: Lessons for India to learn from US and China!London court green-signals auction of luxury apartment of fugitive Nirav ModiGovt consults RBI; finalises borrowing plan for first half of FY 2024-25Gadkari says Farmers’ protest is politically-motivatedVP calls upon women entrepreneurs to be 'Vocal for Local'America offers USD 10 mn bounty for information on ‘Blackcat’ hackers after UnitedHealth gets hitI-T- The order of the ITSC can only be reopened in cases of fraud or misrepresentation: HC8 persons including Hezbollah militants killed in Israeli strike on LebanonMacron pillories EU-South Africa trade deal; calls it ‘really bad’ in BrazilThailand’s Lower House okays Bill to legitimise same-sex marriageYellen warns China against clean energy dumpingMilky Way’s central black hole - Twisted magnetic field observedCus - Assessee has not proved beyond reasonable doubt that goods in question imported under air way bills/bills of entry were in fact filed by him and hence the only natural corollary available to Revenue is confiscation of same: CESTATSmall investors help Trump Media’s valuation skyrocket to USD 13 billionJustice Ritu Raj Awasthi joins as Judicial member of Lokpal
 
ST - Refund - Appellant's claim is that by virtue of Sec 68(2) since liability to pay partial ST has been imposed on them, they become service provider is misplaced: CESTAT

By TIOL News Service

MUMBAI, FEB 09, 2018: THE appellants are engaged in the export of non-excisable commodity, namely, "fruits pulp".

They received input services of Manpower Recruitment and Security and claimed refund of the tax paid under rule 5B of CCR, 2004.

The refund claims were rejected by the original adjudicating authority relying on Rule 5B of the CCR, 2004 read with Notification NO. 12/2014-CE(NT).

The Commissioner (Appeals) while concluding that the appellants were not service providers and, therefore, not entitled to refund, short listed the following questions:

"(1) Whether the appellant, who pays service tax under reverse charge mechanism (a recipient of taxable service but liable to pay duty in terms of the provisions of Section 68 (2) of the Finance Act, 1994) can also be called "output service providers?

(2) Whether manufacturer of goods having "Nil" tariff rate of duty is eligible for Cenvat Credit at all?"

The Commissioner (Appeals) also held that the appellants are not entitled to CENVAT Credit as the final products manufactured by them is not excisable.

The appellant is before the CESTAT and submits that they are entitled to CENVAT credit in view of the decisions in Drish Shoes Ltd. - 2010-TIOL-350-HC-HP-CX and Sharp Menthol India Ltd. - 2011-TIOL-490-HC-MUM-CX. Moreover, as regards refund, it is submitted that in view of the provisions of section 68(2) of the FA, 1994, since they are required to pay service tax on reverse charge basis, they become service providers and are entitled for the benefit of notification.

The Bench extracted paragraphs 27 & 28 from the decision in Sharp Menthol (supra) and held that in view of the same, the CENVAT Credit cannot be denied on the ground that the final product "fruit pulp" exported by the appellants is chargeable to Nil rate of duty as per tariff.

As regards the second issue, the CESTAT observed -

"5.1 It is clear from the notification [12/2014-CE(NT) dated 03.03.2014 ] and Rule 5B that the said rule and notification are intended solely for the service provider providing specific services. The appellant's claim is that by virtue of Section 68(2), since liability to pay partial service tax has been imposed on them they become service provider is misplaced. The Act differentiates between the service provider and person liable to pay service tax under different circumstances. It is possible that the person liable to pay service tax may not be the service provider. If the Government intended to provide this facility to service recipient paying service tax on reverse charge basis the Government would have used the word "person liable to pay service tax" and not the word "service provider". Section 68(2) is a special mechanism for shifting part liability to pay service tax from "service provider" to "service recipient" but it does not convert in the "service recipient" into "service provider". In these circumstances, Rule 5B has no application in the appellant's case.

The impugned orders were upheld and the appeals were dismissed.

Quick Reference:

5B. Refund of CENVAT credit to service providers providing services taxed on reverse charge basis. - A provider of service providing services notified under sub-section (2) of section 68 of the Finance Act and being unable to utilise the CENVAT credit availed on inputs and input services for payment of service tax on such output services, shall be allowed refund of such unutilised CENVAT credit subject to procedure, safeguards, conditions and limitations, as may be specified by the Board by notification in the Official Gazette.

(See 2018-TIOL-492-CESTAT-MUM)


POST YOUR COMMENTS
   

AR not Afar by SK Rahman

TIOL Tube Latest

Shri Shailendra Kumar, Trustee, TIOL Trust, giving welcome speech at TIOL Awards 2023




Shri M C Joshi, Former Chairman, CBDT




Address by Shri Buggana Rajendranath, Hon'ble Finance Minister of Andhra Pradesh at TIOL Awards 2023