Department cannot force Assessee to Reverse Credit Merely for non-Intimation made under rule 6 of CCR

Rockey Marketing (Chennai) Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Service Tax (CESTAT Chennai)

The issue under consideration is whether department cannot force upon the assessee to reverse credit under Rule 6(3)(i) merely for the reason that no intimation under Rule 6 of CCR?

CESTAT states that, they have no hesitation to hold that the view taken by the Commissioner (Appeals) that the appellant has to reverse credit as per Rule 6 (3)(i) is against the provisions of law. The appellant would be eligible for refund after reversal / paying of proportionate credit on exempted services by applying Rule 6(3)(i). This amount however has to be verified. Appellant has furnished details of the credit availed and the amount reversed by them along with the letters issued to department. The indirect tax regime has been shifted from Service Tax to GST, appellant would be eligible for cash refund of such amount. However, CESTAT direct the lower authority to quantify the amount eligible for refund after complying with Rule 6(3)(i) being the proportionate credit availed on exempted services. CESTAT find the issue under consideration in the appeal in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. For the limited purpose of quantification of the amount eligible for refund, CESTAT remand the matter to the adjudicating authority. Needless to say that refund being of input service credit, the question of unjust enrichment does not arise. The appeal is allowed in above terms.

FULL TEXT OF THE CESTAT JUDGEMENT

Please become a member. If you are already a member, login here to access the full content.