SC: Under RTE Act, States Cannot Justify Low Teacher Pay by Citing Centre’s Failure to Release Funds  ||  Supreme Court: While a Child’s Welfare is Paramount, It is Not the Sole Factor in Custody Disputes  ||  Supreme Court: High Court Cannot Reject a Plaint While Exercising Jurisdiction under Article 227  ||  SC: Merely Leasing an Apartment Does Not Bar a Flat Buyer’s Consumer Complaint Against the Builder  ||  Delhi HC: Unproven Adultery Allegations Cannot be Used to Deny Interim Maintenance under the DV Act  ||  Bombay HC: Storing Items in a Fridge isn’t Manufacturing and Doesn’t Make Premises a Factory  ||  Kerala HC: Disability Pension is Not Payable if the Condition is Unrelated to Military Service  ||  Supreme Court: Award Valid Even If Passed After Mandate Expiry When Court Extends Time  ||  Jharkhand HC: Regular Bail Plea During Interim Bail is Not Maintainable under Section 483 BNSS  ||  Cal HC: Theft Claims and Public Humiliation Alone Don’t Amount To Abetment of Suicide U/S 306 IPC    

Ineos Styrolution India Ltd vs. C.C.E. & S.T. Vadodara-I - (Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal) (07 Mar 2022)

Demand of reversal of cenvat credit cannot be upheld, as Rule 9(1)(bb) of the Cenvat Credit Rules is not applicable

MANU/CS/0055/2022

Service Tax

Present appeal has been filed by Ineos Styrolution (India) Ltd. against demand of reversal of cenvat credit, interest and imposition of penalty under Section 78 of Finance Act read with Rule 15(2) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Learned Counsel for the Appellant pointed out that, Rule 9(1)(bb) is not applicable, when credit of service tax is availed on the basis of supplementary invoices. He argued that the said rule does not apply to case of service tax paid under reverse charge mechanism as in the present case.

The Appellant has discharged his service tax liability under Reverse Charge Mechanism availing the benefit of VCES Scheme. In the instant case, it is an undisputed fact that service tax has been paid by the Appellant under Reverse Charge Mechanism in the capacity of 'recipient of service' and not as 'provider of service'. In these circumstances, the case of the Appellant would be covered under Rule 9(1)(e) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.

The entire case of the Revenue is based on invocation of Rule 9(1)(bb) of the Cenvat Credit Rules and since the said Rule is not applicable in respect of the service tax paid by the recipient of service under Reverse Charge Mechanism, the demand of reversal of cenvat credit cannot be upheld. There is no merit in the impugned order and the same is set aside. Appeal is allowed.

Tags : DEMAND   PENALTY   IMPOSITION  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved