Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Anand Globe Vision Cable Network vs Cgst Kanpur on 26 May, 2026
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
ALLAHABAD
REGIONAL BENCH - COURT NO.II
Service Tax Appeal No.70183 of 2026
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.60/ST/Alld/2022 dated 25/03/2022 passed
by Commissioner (Appeals) Central Excise & CGST, Allahabad)
M/s Anand Globe Vision Cable Network, .....Appellant
(Prop Shri Manoj Kumar Tiwari,
1228/45-F-Block Kidwai Nagar, Kanpur)
VERSUS
Commissioner of Central Excise &
CGST, Kanpur ....Respondent
(117/7 Sarvodaya Nagar, Kanpur) APPEARANCE:
None, for the Appellant Smt Chitra Srivastava, Authorised Representative for the Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. SANJIV SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) FINAL ORDER NO.70185/2026 DATE OF HEARING : 26 May, 2026 DATE OF DECISION : 26 May, 2026 SANJIV SRIVASTAVA:
This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No.60/ST/Alld/2022 dated 25/03/2022 passed by Commissioner (Appeals) Central Excise & CGST, Allahabad. By the impugned order, Commissioner (Appeals) has rejected the Order-in- Original No.18/ST/ACK-II/2020 dated 31.07.2020 wherein following has been held:-
"ORDER
(i) Against the demand of Service tax of Rs.1,52,687/ proposed in the SCN,I confirm the demand of service tax of Rs. 53,967/- (including cess) against M/s. Anand Globe Service Tax Appeal No.70183 of 2026 2 Vision Cable Network, (Proprietor Shri Manoj Tiwari).
128/45. F Block, Kidwai Nagar, Kanpur, under Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994 read with section 174 of the CGST Act, 2017, which is recoverable from them along with interest under Section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994. I drop the rest of demand of Service tax of Rs. 98,720/-
(ii) I impose penalty of Rs. 5,000/- upon M/s. Anand Globe Vision Cable Network, (Proprietor Shri Manoj Tiwari), 128/45, F Block, Kidwai Nagar, Kanpur, under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994.
(iii) I do not impose any Penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994.
(iv) I do not impose any Penalty under Section 77(1)(a) of the Finance Act, 1994.
(v) I impose penalty of Rs.10,000/- each under Section 77 (1) (b), 77(1)(c) & 77 (2) of the Finance Act, 1994."
2.1 On the basis of specific information that appellant was providing Cable Operator Services taxable under Finance Act, 1994, and they were not paying the service tax on the complete value of services rendered by them, inquiry was initiated against the appellant. Appellant was vide letter dated 27.11.2017 asked to furnish the required information. Subsequent reminders dated 19.01.2018, 24.05.2018 and 10.08.2018 were issued to the appellant 2.2 As appellant was not cooperating and providing the requisite information therefore vide letters dated 25.09.2018, 09.10.2018 and 29.11.2018 was asked to provide information as follows:
(i) Information regarding Registration.
(ii) Number of activated STB provided by the cable operators.
(iii) Details of the entertainment tax paid by the cable operator during the F Y 2013-14 to 2017-18 (upto June 2017) In response, Commercial Tax Officer, Collectorate, Kanpur vide letter dated 17.12.2018 has provided the details of Service Tax Appeal No.70183 of 2026 3 entertainment tax paid by the appellant. The value of taxable service provided has been computed on the above basis.
2.3 Inquiries and investigations revealed that appellant were providing taxable branded services covered under the definition of Cable Operator Service and the benefit of threshold exemption under Notification No.33/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012 was not available to them. During the period from 2016-17 to 2017-18 (upto June, 2017) did not pay service tax including cess of as detailed in table below:
Financial Entertainment Gross Receipts Service Tax (incl cess) Year Tax @ 25% paid towards service @% payable Paid Short paid 2016-17 555104 2220416 15 333062 252331 80731 2017-18 119926 479704 15 71956 0 71956 Total 675030 2700120 405018 252331 152687 2.4 Show cause notice dated 15.04.2019 was issued to the appellant asking them to show cause as to why-
"(i) The Service Tax amounting to Rs.1,52,687/- (including S. Tax. Education Cess, Higher Education Cess, Swach Bharat Cess and Krishi Kalyan Cess), as discussed above, should not be demanded and recovered from them by invoking extended period under proviso to Section 73(1) of Finance Act 1994 read with Section 68 of the Finance Act, 1994 and Rule 6 of Service Tax Rules, 1994, as the Service Tax has not been paid with intent to evade payment of Service Tax by suppressing the facts from the department read with Section 174(2) of the CGST Act, 2017.
(ii) Interest should not be demanded/ recovered from them under the provisions of Section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994 on the confirmed amount of service tax.
(iii) Penalty should not be imposed upon them under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 for failure to pay Service Tax and for suppression of the value of taxable service with intent to evade the payment to service tax, thereby contravening the provisions of Section 68 of the Service Tax Appeal No.70183 of 2026 4 Finance Act, 1994 read with Rule 6 of Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006.
(iv) Penalty should not be imposed upon them under Section 77(1)(a), 77(1)(b), & 77(1)(c) of the Finance Act, 1994, for failure to take registration under the category of "Cable Operator Service" within time and manner as prescribed under Section 69 of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Rule 4 of the Service Tax Rules, 1994, failed to maintain books of Accounts and other documents, failed to furnish information and produced documents called by the Department;
(iv) Penalty should not be imposed upon them under Section 77(2) of the Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994 for contravention of Section 70 of the Act ibid read with Rule 7 of the Rules ibid."
2.5 The said show cause notice was adjudicated as per the Order-in-Original dated 15.04.2019 referred in para 1 above.
2.6 Aggrieved appellant have filed appeal before Commissioner (Appeals), who vide the impugned order rejected the appeal of the appellant.
2.7 Aggrieved appellant have filed this appeal.
3.1 Appellant is absent on call. I also observe that appellant has never responded to any of the notice for hearing even at the diary stage. (Listed on 21.08.2025, 04.10.2025, 13.03.2026 & 27.04.2026). The application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal was also allowed in his absence on 27.04.2026. 3.2 As the issue involved in the present appeal is in a very narrow compass, the matter is taken into consideration on the basis of records.
3.3 Heard Authorized Representative Smt Chitra Srivastava for the Revenue. She reiterated the findings recorded in the impugned order.
4.1 I have considered the impugned orders along with the submissions made in appeal and during the course of argument.
Service Tax Appeal No.70183 of 2026 5 4.2 For upholding Order-in-Original, impugned order records as follows:-
"4.1 I have gone through the records of the case, the averments made during the personal hearing and all other documents/material available on records.
4.2 I take up the issues one by one for decision. Firstly, the core issue of taxability on account of "Cable Operators"
under tile category of "Cable Services" needs to be discussed. I observe that the Cable Operators Service provided by Cable Operators was first time brought under the ambit of Service Tax vide Notification No. 08/2002-ST dated 01.08.2002 and as per Section 65(21) of the Finance Act, 1994, "Cable operator" has the meaning assigned to it in clause (aa) of Section 2 of the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995 (7 of 1995) and as per Section 65(22) of the Act, "Cable Service" shall have the meaning assigned to it in clause (b) of Section 2 of the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995 (7 of 1995). Further, as per Section 2(aa) of the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995 (7 of 1995) (here-in-after referred to as 'CTN Act'), "cable operator means any person who provides cable service through a cable television network or otherwise controls or is responsible for the management and operation of a cable television network and fulfills the prescribed eligibility criteria and conditions. Also, Section 2(b) of the CTN Act, "cable service" means the transmission by cables of programmes including re-transmission by cables of any broadcast television signals. Further, "the cable television network is defined as per Section 2(c) of the CTN Act to mean any system consisting of a set of closed transmission paths and associated signal generation, control and distribution equipment, designed to provide cable service for reception by multiple subscribers, "Subscriber" is defined as per Section 2(i) of the CTN Act to mean any Service Tax Appeal No.70183 of 2026 6 individual or association of individuals or a company or any other organization or body who receives the signals of cable television network at a place indicated by him or it to the Cable Operator without further transmitting it to any other person. The definition of the cable services under the Act was amended w.e.f. 10.9.2004 as Taxable services"
means any service provided to any person by a cable operator including a MSO in relation to cable service. Subsequently, w.e.f. 16.6.2005 the definition of taxable service was amended as Taxable service means any service provided or to be provided to any person by a cable operator including MSO in relation to cable service."
So the services provided by both cable operator and MSO continued to be taxable within the scope of definition of 'service' and 'taxable service' given under Section 65B (44) of the Act which emphasized that "service" means any activity carried out by a person for another for consideration, and includes a declared service after introduction of negative tax regime w.e.f 01.07.2012.
4.3 I further observe that the CBEC vide Circular No. 80/10/2004-ST dated 17.09.2004, explained the changes made in the budget for 2004-05 as under:
"Extension of service tax on cable operators to Multi system operators (MSOs): In cable TV services, broadcast channels transmit television signals to multi system operators (MSO) who further send them to the cable operator. The services provided by the MSOs to the cable operators have been made taxable 4.3.1 Furthermore, CBEC vide circular No F.No.B11/6/12005-TRU dated 27.07.2005, explained the changes in the budget for 2005-06 as under;
"In the case of radio or TV broadcasting services, the services are subject to tax where the services are effectively used and enjoyed. Multi System Operators Service Tax Appeal No.70183 of 2026 7 (MSOs) are permitted to receive signals from the broadcasting agencies on payment of prescribed amount. Cable operators transmit programmes to customers through cable network after receiving signals from the multisystem operators (MSOs). Prior to 16.06.2005, service tax was leviable on services provided by cable operators to their customers and multisystem operators to cable operators. In this year's budget, the charges recovered by the broadcasting agencies from the multisystem operator for providing the signals have been specifically made liable to service tax. This completes the service tax chain from the customer to the broadcaster."
4.3.2 I observe that the MSO's received the TV signals from the broadcasters/aggregators They entered into agreements with the broadcasters who provide the integrated receiver decoder boxes (IRD) to receive the signals in the encrypted torm. These boxes were installed by the MSO. The MSO then transmits the signals either through the LCO or directly to the subscribers. When the MSO provides the service through the local cable operator who would then re-transmit the broadcast television signals by the cable to the last mile subscriber, then such a LCO is the cable operator. The definition of the cable operator as per Section 2(aa) of the CTN Act states that a "cable operator" means any person who provides cable service through a Cable Television Network or otherwise controls or responsible for management and operation of Cable Television Network and fulfills the prescribed eligibility criteria and conditions. The "Cable Television Network" as per section 2(c) of the CTN on other hand means any system consisting of a set of closed transmission paths and associated signal generation, control and distribution equipment designed to provide cable service for reception by multiple subscribers. Hence there are two main ingredients in the definition of the Service Tax Appeal No.70183 of 2026 8 Cable Television Network, one is cable service and the other is subscribers. The "Cable Service" is defined in Section 2(b) of the CTN Act to mean transmission by cables of programmes including re-transmission by cables of any broadcast television signals while "Subscriber" has been defined in Section 2(f) of the CTN Act to mean any individual or association of individual or a company or any other organization or body who receives the signals of cable television network at a place indicated by him from MSO or the cable operator, without further transmitting it to any other person. In view of these definitions it is clear that LCO is the cable operator when he re-transmits the TV signal as he fulfills the definition of the term Cable Operator when he provides cable service to the last mile subscriber.
4.3.3 The same view has been taken by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in its judgment dated 09.03.2017 in the case of M/s Siti Cable Networks Limited vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi & ORS. [W.P. (C) 427/2014 & CM No. 851/2014)), Hon'ble Tribunal in the case of Krishna Satellite Cable Network vs CCE, Jaipur reported in 2008 (12) S.T.R. 605 (Tri. Del) and CESTAT, Chandigarh in its Final Order No- A/60167-60171/2019 dated 22.2.2019 pronounced in the case of M/s Blue Star Communication & others Vs CCE, Ludhiana.
4.4 From the above discussion, it is clear that as the MSO had provided the service through the LCOs, the individual LCOs having their own subscription network were regarded as the cable operators and were liable to pay the service tax. Thus, the contention of the appellant that since MSO has already paid service tax, therefore, they are not liable to pay service tax is devoid of merit.
4.5 The appellant has also contested that in the present case the MSO were paying service tax on the same transmission received by them from the Television Service Tax Appeal No.70183 of 2026 9 Channels and the cable operators again being asked to pay the service tax on the same transmission received from Television Channels leads to the double taxation on the same service. The appellant has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana given in the case of M/s Aameet Puri Vs Umon of India [2007 (5) STR 188 (P & H)]. I observe that in the said case the Hon'ble High Court has held that the " in view of clear definition of "service" as "service to any person" by a cable operator including "a Multi System Operator", contention raised on behalf of the petitioners that Multi System Operator was not liable to pay service tax, unless service was rendered to a viewer or consumer, has no merit. Similarly, contention that service tax is required to be paid twice on the same service is also without any merit". Thus, it is evident that the appellant has misconstrued the said judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana. Relevant portion of the judgment is as under:
"7. In the reply filed on behalf of the Commissioner Central Excise Service Tax, it is submitted that since wef 10-9-2004, "taxable service has been re-defined to mean service provided to "any person", it was not necessary that the cable operator must be providing services to "any customer. Definition of "cable service" under Section 65/22) is as per definition under Section 2(b) of the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995 which IS:
"cable service" means transmission by cables of programmes including re-transmission by cable of any broadcast Television signals."
7.1 Thus, the said definition also includes services provided by "Multi System Operator". It is further pointed out that there is no system of double burden as Cenvat Credit Rules have been applicable to give credit of the amount of service tax on the input by Service Tax Appeal No.70183 of 2026 10 MSO which can be utilised on output services by cable service providers to the viewers.
8. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the record.
9. In view of clear definition of "service" as "service to any person" by a cable operator including "a Multi System Operator", contention raised on behalf of the petitioners that Multi System Operator was not liable to pay service tax, unless service was rendered to a viewer or consumer, has no merit. Similarly, contention that service tax is required to be paid twice on the same service is also without any merit, in view of the stand taken on behalf of the State in the written statement to the effect that in terms of Cenuat Credit Rules, 2004, credit of the service tax paid on input services is available while paying service tax on output services. The same is also supported by Circular No. F. No. B2/8/2004-TRU dated 10-9-2004, para 29.
10. Accordingly, both the writ petitions are dismissed".
4.6 Now I take the issue whether the appellant is providing branded service or not. I observe that in this case, the appellant is cable operator and providing cable services to the subscribers on the basis of signals received from the MSO ie M/s DEN. The subscriber has not asked for any brand for providing the said services. In fact, the appellant is also not providing any branded service as M/s DEN is supplying signal to the appellant which has been transmitted to the subscribers, in that circumstances, there is no relation of brand name to the ultimate customers. Therefore, I hold that the appellant is not providing any branded service to the subscribers; therefore, the appellant is entitled to avail the benefit of exemption Notification No. 33/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012 Service Tax Appeal No.70183 of 2026 11 subject to fulfillment of conditions mentioned in the said exemption notification.
4.6.1 1 observe that the Notification No. 33/2012-ST, dated 20.06.2012 exempts taxable services of aggregate value not exceeding ten lakh rupees in any financial year from the whole of the service tax leviable thereon under section 66B of the Finance Act, 1994, provided the aggregate value of taxable services rendered by a provider of taxable service does not exceed Ten Lakh rupees in the preceding financial year. Since in the instant case the appellant has received Rs.22,20,416/- during the F.Y 2016-17 and also paid service tax, therefore, the appellant is not entitled to threshold exemption of Rs. 10 lakh in the F.Y. 2017-18 in terms of Notification No. 33/2012-ST, dated 20.06.2012 as amended.
4.7 As regard the issue of admissibility of Cenvat credit of the service tax paid by the MSO Le M/s DEN, I find that the matter has been decided by the CESTAT, Chandigarh in its Final Order No- A/60167-60171/2019 dated 22.2.2019 in the case of M/s Blue Star Communication & others Vs CCE, Ludhiana by observing that "We find that the out of total amount received by the appellants, some amounts of total subscriptions, the appellant are remitting to the MSO on which the MSO is paying service tax, therefore, the signals provided by the MSO to the appellants is an input services for the appellants. Therefore, the service tax paid by the MSO is available as Cenvat credit to the appellants. Applying the ratio decided in the above decision of the Hon'ble CESTAT, I hold that the Cenvat credit of total service tax amount on input service used for providing taxable service during relevant financial years is allowed to the appellant subject to fulfillment of other such conditions as provided under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 for the admissibility of the same. In the instant case appellant has neither registered Service Tax Appeal No.70183 of 2026 12 with the department during relevant period nor filed statutory ST-3 returns showing availment /utilization of eligible CENVAT credit in the said returns. Thus, it is evident that the appellant failed to avail CENVAT Credit on input services within prescribed limit of six months/one year thereby contravened the sixth proviso to the Rule 4(7) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. It is well settled principle that the claim of CENVAT Credit taken and/or utilized crystallizes only when the appellant has maintained CENVAT credit records & files statuary returns before the Department claiming the eligible CENVAT credit in the said returns. Thus, the CENVAT Credit can only be availed by filing the statuary ST-3 return, if no return is filed, it cannot be presumed that appellant has legitimate credit available within the prescribed time limit & would be available for infinite period of time. The appellant has also failed to maintained/produced any CENVAT record for availment of CENVAT credit within prescribed time limit, therefore, contravened the provisions of Rule 9(6) & Rule 9(9) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the appellant is not eligible for CENVAT credit due to non-fulfillment of condition mentioned in the Rule 4(7), 9(6) & 9(9) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.
4.8 It is observed that appellant has failed to pay service tax amounting to Rs. 53,967/-during the April 2017 to June 2017, therefore, penalty of Rs. 5,000/- imposed by the adjudicating authority under Section 76 of the Act is justified. Further, I also observe that the appellant has failed to maintain proper records & also failed to furnish the information/documents to the department, therefore, penalties imposed by the adjudicating authority under Sections 77(1)(b) & 77(1)(c) of the Act are justified. The appellant has not filed ST-3 returns for the period April 2017 to June 2017, therefore, penalty imposed by the adjudicating authority for non-filing of ST-3 returns for the Service Tax Appeal No.70183 of 2026 13 period April 2017 to June 2017 under section 77(2) of the Act is also justified.
5 In view of the above, I uphold the impugned order & reject the appeal filed by the appellant."
4.3 In this case the appellant was registered with the service tax authorities and was also paying the service tax and filing service tax returns also. Undisputedly for the period 2016-17 they have paid service tax and also filed the ST-3 return. However for the period April 2017 to June 2017, appellant did not paid the service tax and did not filed any ST-3 return. Appellant was vide letters dated 27.11.2017, 19.01.2018, 24.05.2018 and 10.08.20-18 was asked to furnish the requisite information which they failed to provide. Thereafter the information was collected from the Commercial Tax officer and the show cause notice was issued to the appellant on 15.04.2019. Since the show cause notice has been issued within the normal period of limitation i.e. within thirty months from the relevant date i.e. date of filing the ST-3 return, the demand is not barred by limitation. Further I observe that order in original has re-determined the demand of service tax as detailed in table below (para 22.1 of the order in original):
22.1 In view of the above findings the service tax liability for the relevant period (April 2016 to June 2017) is calculated as under:
(i) Service Tax liability for 2016-17
Entertainment Total amount amount Rate Service Service Service
Tax @ 25% received by received by of Tax Tax Paid Tax
paid by party the party the party Tax required as per Not
(including (excluding to be ST-3 paid by
Entertainment Entertainment paid (in returns the
Tax) Tax) Rs) (In Rs) party
A B C D E F G
555104 2220416 1665312 15% 249797 252331* 0
*As already mentioned in the SCN
(ii) Service Tax Liability for April 17 to June 17.
Entertainment Total amount amount Rate Service Service Service
Tax @ 25% received by received by of Tax Tax Tax Not
paid by party the party the party Tax required Paid as paid by
Service Tax Appeal No.70183 of 2026
14
(including (excluding to be per the
Entertainment Entertainment paid (in ST-3 party
Tax) Tax) Rs) returns
(In Rs)
A B C D E F G
119926 479704 359778 15% 53967 0 53967
From the table as above para of the order in original it is evident that during the period 2016-17 appellant as per the adjudicating authority has paid excess service tax amounting to Rs 2,534 (Rs 252331/- - Rs 249797/-). This excess payment of service tax during the period needs to be adjusted against the tax liability for the subsequent period.
4.4 With regards to admissibility of Cenvat credit, I do not find any reason to disagree with the findings recorded in the impugned order. The credit have to be allowed strictly as per the provisions of the Cenvat Credit Rules and appellant should have taken the credit within one year from the date of issuance of document against which credit is claimed. In the case of Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. [2000 (120) E.L.T. 214 (Tribunal - LB)] referred by Authorized Representative appearing for revenue, Tribunal have upheld the denial of credit taken beyond the period prescribed by Central Excise Rules, 1944. In the said decision Tribunal has held as follows:-
"12. We find that after the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Eicher Motors Ltd. v. Union of India (Supra), Sub-Section XXVIII is introduced in Section 37 to provide for Rules which empower the Government to make rules for not allowing credit to be utilised for payment of duty on excisable goods, by Section 131 of Finance Act, 1999. Therefore, after this amendment reliance by the appellants on the decision in the case of Eicher Motors Ltd. v. Union of India will not help them. If a manufacturer wants to avail the benefit of Modvat credit in respect of inputs used in or in relation to the manufacture of final product on payment of duty on such final products under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, he should follow the procedure laid down under the Modvat Scheme.
Service Tax Appeal No.70183 of 2026 15 The contention of the appellants is that if on the inputs the manufacturer had already paid the duty on the basis that when the goods are utilised in the manufacture of final product then tax on these goods are to be adjusted and this right accrued to the manufacturer on the date when they paid the tax on the inputs. The right will continue till the facility is available. A manufacturer who is working under the Modvat Scheme can certainly utilise the credit of the duty paid on the inputs used in or in relation to the manufacture of final product for payment of duty on such final product; but he has to take credit on such inputs within six months from the date of issue of the duty paying documents. After the amendment credit cannot be taken on duty paying documents which are more than 6 months old.
13. In view of the above discussions, we answer the question referred to Larger Bench in the favour of Revenue. Therefore, the view taken in case of Osram Surya Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Indore, reported in 1998 (29) RLT 684 is the correct view and the contrary view taken in correct.
14. No other issue is involved in the appeals. Therefore, the appeals are being taken up for disposal. The appellants availed the benefit of Modvat credit on documents after six months from the date of their issue. After amendment to Rule 57G of Central Excise Act, the appellants are not entitled to such credit. The appeals are accordingly dismissed."
4.5 I also note that the view taken by the Tribunal have approved by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Osram Surya Pvt. Ltd. [2002 (142) ELT 5 (SC)].
4.6 Hon'ble Allahabad High Court has in case of Rathi Ispat Ltd. [2010 (251) ELT 199 (All)] referred by the Authorized Representative observed as follows:
Service Tax Appeal No.70183 of 2026 16
7. Considered the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Before proceeding further, it would be appropriate to have a glance on Rule 57G(5) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 as on the date on which the Modvat credit of Rs. 1,15,405/- was taken, which reads as follows :-
"(5) Credit shall also not be taken by the manufacturer after six months of the date of issue of any document specified in sub-rule (3) and where the intermediate products manufactured by the user of inputs specified under Rule 57J are received by the manufacturer, after nine months."
8. The above rule came up for consideration and interpretation before the Apex Court in the case of Osram Surya (P) Ltd. (supra) The validity of the said provision was not under challenge therein. The only controversy raised before the Apex Court was that the rule in question is not applicable in regard to the credits acquired by a manufacturer prior to coming into force of the rule. Disagreeing with the said proposition, the Apex Court observed that a plain reading of the said sub-rule clearly shows that it applies to those cases where a manufacturer is seeking to take the credit after the introduction of the rule and to cases where the manufacturer is seeking to do so after a period of six months from the date when the manufacturer received the inputs. It was held that the said sub-rule operates prospectively in regard to those manufacturers who seek to take credit after coming into force of the rule. Agreeing with the Tribunal, the Apex Court has observed as follows :-
"Therefore, in our opinion, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the rule in question only restricts a right of manufacturer to take the credit beyond the stipulated period of six months under the rule."
9. The ratio of the above judgment is that the said sub-rule is in the nature of period of limitation restricting the right of manufacturer to take the credit within the specified period of Service Tax Appeal No.70183 of 2026 17 limitation and beyond the period of limitation, the benefit of said rule cannot be availed of by the manufacturer.
10. Having said as above, we may consider certain salutary principles regarding the principle of limitation, to test the argument of the applicants.
11. The law of limitation is based on delay and laches. It does not bar the right but the remedy. One of the most important and universal rules (which is not, however, without exception in English law) is that time, when it has once commenced to run in any case will not cease to do so by reason of any subsequent event which may be within the saving of the statute. Of this there is a well-known instance drawn from the time of the English civil wars. In answer to a plea of the statute, the plaintiff replied that a civil war had broken out, and the Government was usurped by certain traitors and rebels, which hindered the course of justice, and by which the courts were shut upon and that within six years after the war ended he commenced his action and yet his replication was held to be bad.
12. The law of limitation is not one of substance but of procedure. The object of prescribing limitation is to put an end to itigation, or to state it in other words, litigation may attain a finality.
13. The other principle of interpretation while dealing with the provisions of a fiscal statute is that a fiscal statute should be read as it is without adding or subtracting any word. There is no equity about the tax and equitable considerations are not relevant in interpreting the provisions of taxing statute. But the tax laws are to be interpreted reasonably and in consonance with justice. It is said that equity and taxation are often strangers, attempts should be made that these do not remain always so and if construction results in equity rather than in injustice, then such construction should be preferred to the literal construction. [(See CIT v. J.H. Gotla (1985) 156 ITR 323 (S.C.)] Service Tax Appeal No.70183 of 2026 18
14. Keeping the above principles of interpretation of law, on a plain reading of relevant sub-rule (5) of Rule 57G would show that it admits no exception whatsoever for consideration of any claim of Modvat credit after the expiry of period of six months from the date of the commencement of the period of limitation.
15. Apart from the above, keeping in view the salutary principle applicable to the provisions dealing with the limitation that once the period of limitation has began, no subsequent event can stop it, the argument of the applicant is liable to be rejected.
16. Though in a slightly different context the Apex Court while interpreting Section 11A of Central Excise and Salt Act has observed that:-
"Limitation period should not be stretched more than the elasticity supplied in the Section itself. So, the eventuality envisaged in S. 11A for the further lengthening of the limitation period must be strictly construed."
17. In Gurusahai Saigal v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Punjab, AIR 1963 SC 1062, a case under the Income-tax Act, the Apex Court while construing the relevant provision of the Act has held that the proper way to deal with such a provision is to give it an interpretation which, to use the words of the Privy Council in Mahaliram Ramjidas's case, AIR 1940 PC 124, "makes the machinery workable, ut res valeat potius quam pereat."
18. Reference was made by the learned counsel for the applicant to the case of Commissioner of C.EX., Jaipur v. Parasrampuria Synthetics Ltd., 2000 (116) E.L.T. 581 (Tribunal) wherein it has been held that the bar created by the amended rule would have no application when the initial credit was taken within the prescribed period and the additional or the differential credit being taken after the prescribed period of six months. The said judgment of the Tribunal is of no avail to the applicant for the reasons more than one. Firstly, no Service Tax Appeal No.70183 of 2026 19 principle of law has been discussed therein and secondly, the Tribunal had not the advantage of the authoritative pronouncement of the Apex Court in the case of Osram Surya (P) Ltd. (supra) which came into existence subsequently.
4.7 Thus, I am not inclined to allow the benefit of Cenvat credit sought in respect of the documents which are beyond one year from the date of when the claim to CENVAT Credit is made as this goes contrary to Rule 4 of Cenvat Credit Rules.
4.8 Thus apart from the adjustment of Rs.2534/- paid excess during the period 2016-17 from the demand made for the period April 2017 to June 2017, I am inclined to uphold the impugned order.
5.1 Appeal is disposed of as indicated in para 4.8 above.
(Dictated and pronounced in open court) (SANJIV SRIVASTAVA) MEMBER (TECHNICAL) akp