75th Founding Day Lecture Meeting on “India@2030” Know More

August 2016

2016 (42) STR 290 (Tri.- Mum) Tata Technologies Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune – I

By Puloma Dalal, Jayesh Gogri, Mandar Telang; Chartered Accountants
Reading Time 1 mins
fiogf49gjkf0d
CENVAT credit cannot be denied on belated filing of declaration under Rule 6(3A)

Facts
The Appellant is engaged in providing taxable as well as exempt service. It had made a declaration as provided by Rule 6(3A) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 but the declaration was filed belatedly. Delay in filing declaration was considered as non-filing of declaration by the department and credit was denied.

Held
Condition of filing declaration is only directory and not mandatory. Intention of the legislation is that assessee should not get any undue benefit in the form of CENVAT credit which is attributable to the exempt services. Substantial benefit cannot be denied due to minor procedural lapse. Rule 6 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 cannot be used as a tool of oppression to extract the amount which is much beyond remedial measure and what cannot be connected directly cannot be collected indirectly as well. Accordingly appeal was allowed.

Download PDF

You May Also Like

2016(41) STR 236(Tri.-Del) Travel Inn India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Delhi

[2016] 70 taxmann.com 59 (Mumbai CESTAT) – Sanjay Automobiles Engineers (P) Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-III.