Can cenvat credit can be utilized for rcm payment
This query is : Resolved
26 July 2013
Dear all,
I have to pay my RCM liability, so please let me know that ca i utilize the cenvat credit to pay the RCM liability.
I have to pay my RCM liability, so please let me know that ca i utilize the cenvat credit to pay the RCM liability.
26 July 2013
1)Cenvat credit cannot be used to pay tax by service receiver. Service tax as to be paid by cash only i.e. GAR-7 challan.
2)Once paid, Cenvat credit can be taken if otherwise it is his eligible ‘input service’.
3)Tax should be paid under service tax registration number of service receiver and included in his return as he is liable to pay service tax.
Thanks & regards
Ganesh babu k
2)Once paid, Cenvat credit can be taken if otherwise it is his eligible ‘input service’.
3)Tax should be paid under service tax registration number of service receiver and included in his return as he is liable to pay service tax.
Thanks & regards
Ganesh babu k
26 July 2013
Use separate challan (cash) for reverse charge mechanism and as correctly informed by the expert, cenvat credit cannot be used for this.
If it is eligible input, the same can be adjusted for your output tax.
If it is eligible input, the same can be adjusted for your output tax.
27 July 2013
Dear Experts,
I need ur opinion on the Case of M/s GE India Industrial Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Commissioner of Service tax.
In this case it is given that Cenvat Credit can be utilized against RCM.
I need ur opinion on the Case of M/s GE India Industrial Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Commissioner of Service tax.
In this case it is given that Cenvat Credit can be utilized against RCM.
27 July 2013
M/s GE India Industrial Pvt. Ltd.
Versus
The Commissioner of Service Tax, Bangalore
Appeal No: ST/2134 OF 2010, Date of Order: 23.01.2013,
CORAM:
Hon’ble Mr. P.G. Chacko, Member (Judicial)
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed mainly against demand of service tax and education cesses totaling to Rs.
3,36,083/‐ for the period from April 2007 to March 2008. A penalty of Rs. 3,26,477/‐ imposed on them under Section
78 of the Finance Act, 1994 is also under challenge.
2. On a perusal of the records, I find that, during the material period, the appellant was engaged in the manufacture of
electrical goods and that, for bringing raw materials into their factory and transportation of the finished goods from the factory, they used GTA service provided by various transporters. Various other input services were also used by the
assessee in, or in relation to, the manufacture and clearance of final products during the said period. CENVAT credit of
the service tax paid on these input services was taken by the assessee and utilised for payment of service tax on GTA
service in the reverse charge mechanism. This was objected to by the department on the ground that the GTA service
was not an output service for the appellant. This objection made its way into a show‐cause notice dated 23.9.2008
wherein service tax and education cesses totaling to Rs. 3,36,083/‐ was demanded under Section 73 of the Act on the
GTA service received by the assessee from April 2007 to March 2008, interest thereon was demanded under Section 75 of the Act and penalties were proposed under Sections 76 to 78 of the Act. The demands/proposals were contested by the party. In adjudication of the dispute, the original authority confirmed the demand of service tax and education cesses and of interest thereon against the assessee and imposed on them a penalty of Rs. 3,26,477/‐ under Section 78 of the Act. The order of adjudication was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). Hence the present appeal of the
assessee.
3. After hearing both sides and considering their submissions, I have found
(a) that, during the period of dispute, the appellant was admittedly liable to pay service tax on the GTA service
received by them and used for inward transportation of raw materials and outward transportation of final products
vide Rule 2(1)(d) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994; 7/26/13 CENVAT credit can be utilized for payment of Service Tax under Reverse Charge
(b) that, during the period of dispute, output service meant any taxable service provided by the provider of taxable
service to a customer, client, subscriber, policy holder or any other person, as the case may be, vide Rule 2(p) of
the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004;
(c ) that the appellant, during the period of dispute, was engaged in the manufacture of excisable products and not
engaged in the business of providing any output service as defined under Rule 2(p) of the CCR 2004;
(d) that the show-cause notice in question proposed to deny CENVAT credit on input services vis-`-vis GTA
service solely on the ground that the latter was not an output service for the appellant;
(e) that such denial of CENVAT credit on input services has resulted in the impugned demand of service tax (with
education cesses) on the GTA service inasmuch as such CENVAT credit was found have been utilised towards
payment of service tax on the GTA service;
(f) that the show-cause notice was issued within the normal period of limitation prescribed under Section 73 of the
Finance Act, 1994 and hence did not have to invoke the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 73;
(g) that the show-cause notice invoked Section 78 of the Act on the ground of suppression of taxable value of
GTA service, without attributing mens rea to the party;
(h) that, on the merits of the case, the appellant heavily relies on Commissioner vs. Nahar Industrial Enterprises
Ltd. [2012 (25) S.T.R. 129 (P & H)] wherein the assessee, who was engaged in the manufacture of excisable
goods and used to avail GTA service in connection with such manufacture as also to pay service tax on such
service in the reverse charge mechanism, was deemed to be the provider ofoutput service(GTA service) and,
accordingly, held to be entitled to utilise CENVAT credit on inputs/input services/capital goods towards payment
of service tax on the GTA service;
(i) that the appellant has also contested the Section 78 penalty on the ground that none of the ingredients for such a
penalty was alleged in the show-cause notice and on the further ground that there were certain decisions of this
Tribunal which enabled the appellant to claim CENVAT credit on input services and utilise it for payment of
service tax on GTA service;
(j) that the respondent through the learned Additional Commissioner (AR) refers to Panchmahal Steel Ltd. vs.
Commissioner of C. Ex. & Cus., Vadodara-II [2008 (12) S.T.R. 447 (Tri.-Ahmd.)] whereby a similar question
was referred to Larger Bench;
(k) that the respondent has also claimed support from Alstom Projects India Ltd. vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.,
Coimbatore [2008 (12) S.T.R. 23 (Tri.-Chennai)];
(l) that, apart from the submissions made with regard to the demand of service tax and the imposition of penalty,
another grievance has also been raised by the appellant, which is to the effect that an amount of Rs. 41,772/- paid
in cash towards service tax on GTA service was ignored by the lower authorities while quantifying the demand.
4. On a perusal of the Hon’ble High Court’s judgement, I have found that the period of dispute involved in that case
was prior to April 2006. The Hon’ble High Court, on a set of facts similar to the facts of the instant case, framed the
following question of law :-
- Whether a person who is not a actual service provider, but discharges the service tax liability on the Taxable
Services, under Section 68(2) of Finance Act, 1994, as a deemed service provider, is entitled to avail the
CENVAT credit on inputs/input services/capital goods for payment of GTA service tax, even if he is not using such
inputs/input services/capital goods for providing taxable services by virtue of deeming legal fiction?
7/26/13 CENVAT credit can be utilized for payment of Service Tax under Reverse Charge
In view of paragraph 2.4.2 of CBEC’s Excise Manual of Supplementary Instructions, the Hon’ble High Court answered
the above question in the affirmative in favour of the assessee. The decision was rendered on 06.5.2010, i.e. long after a
similar question was referred by a regular Bench of this Tribunal to Larger Bench in the case of Panchmahal Steel Ltd.
(supra). Obviously, the referring Bench did not have the advantage of considering the High Court’s decision. At the
present stage, one has to follow the view taken by the Hon’ble High Court, in the absence of any binding judicial
precedent to the contra. Accordingly, it is held that the appellant was, during the material period, entitled to take
CENVAT credit on input services and utilise the same for payment of service tax on the GTA service. Consequently,
the impugned demands are liable to be set aside. In the result, the impugned order is set aside and this appeal is
allowed.
Versus
The Commissioner of Service Tax, Bangalore
Appeal No: ST/2134 OF 2010, Date of Order: 23.01.2013,
CORAM:
Hon’ble Mr. P.G. Chacko, Member (Judicial)
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed mainly against demand of service tax and education cesses totaling to Rs.
3,36,083/‐ for the period from April 2007 to March 2008. A penalty of Rs. 3,26,477/‐ imposed on them under Section
78 of the Finance Act, 1994 is also under challenge.
2. On a perusal of the records, I find that, during the material period, the appellant was engaged in the manufacture of
electrical goods and that, for bringing raw materials into their factory and transportation of the finished goods from the factory, they used GTA service provided by various transporters. Various other input services were also used by the
assessee in, or in relation to, the manufacture and clearance of final products during the said period. CENVAT credit of
the service tax paid on these input services was taken by the assessee and utilised for payment of service tax on GTA
service in the reverse charge mechanism. This was objected to by the department on the ground that the GTA service
was not an output service for the appellant. This objection made its way into a show‐cause notice dated 23.9.2008
wherein service tax and education cesses totaling to Rs. 3,36,083/‐ was demanded under Section 73 of the Act on the
GTA service received by the assessee from April 2007 to March 2008, interest thereon was demanded under Section 75 of the Act and penalties were proposed under Sections 76 to 78 of the Act. The demands/proposals were contested by the party. In adjudication of the dispute, the original authority confirmed the demand of service tax and education cesses and of interest thereon against the assessee and imposed on them a penalty of Rs. 3,26,477/‐ under Section 78 of the Act. The order of adjudication was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). Hence the present appeal of the
assessee.
3. After hearing both sides and considering their submissions, I have found
(a) that, during the period of dispute, the appellant was admittedly liable to pay service tax on the GTA service
received by them and used for inward transportation of raw materials and outward transportation of final products
vide Rule 2(1)(d) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994; 7/26/13 CENVAT credit can be utilized for payment of Service Tax under Reverse Charge
(b) that, during the period of dispute, output service meant any taxable service provided by the provider of taxable
service to a customer, client, subscriber, policy holder or any other person, as the case may be, vide Rule 2(p) of
the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004;
(c ) that the appellant, during the period of dispute, was engaged in the manufacture of excisable products and not
engaged in the business of providing any output service as defined under Rule 2(p) of the CCR 2004;
(d) that the show-cause notice in question proposed to deny CENVAT credit on input services vis-`-vis GTA
service solely on the ground that the latter was not an output service for the appellant;
(e) that such denial of CENVAT credit on input services has resulted in the impugned demand of service tax (with
education cesses) on the GTA service inasmuch as such CENVAT credit was found have been utilised towards
payment of service tax on the GTA service;
(f) that the show-cause notice was issued within the normal period of limitation prescribed under Section 73 of the
Finance Act, 1994 and hence did not have to invoke the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 73;
(g) that the show-cause notice invoked Section 78 of the Act on the ground of suppression of taxable value of
GTA service, without attributing mens rea to the party;
(h) that, on the merits of the case, the appellant heavily relies on Commissioner vs. Nahar Industrial Enterprises
Ltd. [2012 (25) S.T.R. 129 (P & H)] wherein the assessee, who was engaged in the manufacture of excisable
goods and used to avail GTA service in connection with such manufacture as also to pay service tax on such
service in the reverse charge mechanism, was deemed to be the provider ofoutput service(GTA service) and,
accordingly, held to be entitled to utilise CENVAT credit on inputs/input services/capital goods towards payment
of service tax on the GTA service;
(i) that the appellant has also contested the Section 78 penalty on the ground that none of the ingredients for such a
penalty was alleged in the show-cause notice and on the further ground that there were certain decisions of this
Tribunal which enabled the appellant to claim CENVAT credit on input services and utilise it for payment of
service tax on GTA service;
(j) that the respondent through the learned Additional Commissioner (AR) refers to Panchmahal Steel Ltd. vs.
Commissioner of C. Ex. & Cus., Vadodara-II [2008 (12) S.T.R. 447 (Tri.-Ahmd.)] whereby a similar question
was referred to Larger Bench;
(k) that the respondent has also claimed support from Alstom Projects India Ltd. vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.,
Coimbatore [2008 (12) S.T.R. 23 (Tri.-Chennai)];
(l) that, apart from the submissions made with regard to the demand of service tax and the imposition of penalty,
another grievance has also been raised by the appellant, which is to the effect that an amount of Rs. 41,772/- paid
in cash towards service tax on GTA service was ignored by the lower authorities while quantifying the demand.
4. On a perusal of the Hon’ble High Court’s judgement, I have found that the period of dispute involved in that case
was prior to April 2006. The Hon’ble High Court, on a set of facts similar to the facts of the instant case, framed the
following question of law :-
- Whether a person who is not a actual service provider, but discharges the service tax liability on the Taxable
Services, under Section 68(2) of Finance Act, 1994, as a deemed service provider, is entitled to avail the
CENVAT credit on inputs/input services/capital goods for payment of GTA service tax, even if he is not using such
inputs/input services/capital goods for providing taxable services by virtue of deeming legal fiction?
7/26/13 CENVAT credit can be utilized for payment of Service Tax under Reverse Charge
In view of paragraph 2.4.2 of CBEC’s Excise Manual of Supplementary Instructions, the Hon’ble High Court answered
the above question in the affirmative in favour of the assessee. The decision was rendered on 06.5.2010, i.e. long after a
similar question was referred by a regular Bench of this Tribunal to Larger Bench in the case of Panchmahal Steel Ltd.
(supra). Obviously, the referring Bench did not have the advantage of considering the High Court’s decision. At the
present stage, one has to follow the view taken by the Hon’ble High Court, in the absence of any binding judicial
precedent to the contra. Accordingly, it is held that the appellant was, during the material period, entitled to take
CENVAT credit on input services and utilise the same for payment of service tax on the GTA service. Consequently,
the impugned demands are liable to be set aside. In the result, the impugned order is set aside and this appeal is
allowed.
28 July 2013
Upto 1.7.2012 for payment of RCM the credit could be used. Arvind Fasfions - Kar High Court.
Subsequently the rule clearly specifies that it cannot be done.
Show cases the greed of the CBEC in imposing unfair laws due to power they have and parliamentarians least concerned/ knowledgeable.
Subsequently the rule clearly specifies that it cannot be done.
Show cases the greed of the CBEC in imposing unfair laws due to power they have and parliamentarians least concerned/ knowledgeable.
28 July 2013
Dear Mr Abhijeet, The judgment is relating to period before negative list regime i.e 01.07.2012.
After 01.07.12 it is specified that rcm will have to be paid by cash not from cenvat.
Regards,
After 01.07.12 it is specified that rcm will have to be paid by cash not from cenvat.
Regards,
29 July 2013
Thanks to all
You need to be the querist or approved CAclub expert to take part in this query .
Click here to login now
Click here to login now
Similar Resolved Queries
Unanswered Queries
- Is this income indian or foreign income?
- 15ca /15cb whose income tax login? remitter or nri seller's login?
- GST on export of services and Input Credit
- ITC temporary reversal and reclaim
- RCM applicability on Rent Paid by Registered Person to Unregistered Landlord for Residental Building
- TDS U/S. 194NF
- Regarding Documentation & Compliances for Opening of Unit of Pvt Ltd.
- Applicable TDS rate for sale of property in Nov 2024
- RCM INVOICING FROM NOV-2024
- Import license renewal
- How to determine cost of acquisition of shares on De-merger or Merger
- LAST YEAR 2022-23 ITC IN NEXT YEAR 2023-24 REPORITNG IN GSTR-9
- MIS MATCH OF INVOICE NUMBER
- IGST Credit-Show cause notice issued-confusion
- Issue of gst e invoice
- How to adjusted advances given or receipt
- Foreign vendor without PAN unable to to register due to non receipt of OTP on foreign number ?
- 133(6) DIN INVALID format error - ->WHERE TO REPLY 133(6) notice?
- Query for dubts
- Regarding einvoice taken on nil rated sales
Trending Online Classes
CAclubindia
