Stay abreast with the latest developments in the professional domain along with in-depth analysis through the monthly BCA Journal. Get access to an engaging library of researched publications from the BCAS stable.
Learn MoreExplore past issues of BCA Journal & indulge in a treasure trove of high-quality professional content across format of print, videos & learning events from the BCAS stable.
Learn More
Facts:
Respondent was engaged in the hotel business and provided services such as beauty parlour, health club & fitness centre, dry cleaning, internet cafe, mandap keeper services etc. Respondent also provided non-taxable services such as hotel accommodation, restaurant & bar services. Respondent availed CENVAT credit of service tax paid on certain services which were utilised for taxable and non-taxable services as per provisions of Rule 6(5) of CCR. Revenue contended that the said Rule permitted taking of the credit and not permitted its utilisation and accordingly the demand was raised to the extent of credit was utilised by the Respondent. In the appeal proceedings, Revenue had a single ground that Rule 6(5) of CCR allows assessee to take the credit and therefore ‘taking’ of credit is distinct from ‘utilisation’.
Held:
Tribunal held that the purpose and objective of CCR is to allow a manufacturer/service provider not only to take credit but also to utilise the same. Therefore, if Respondent is allowed only to ‘take’ the credit without allowing it to ‘use’, the basic objective of CCR would be defeated. The Revenue’s appeal was rejected.
