COMMISSIONER (LTU), Mumbai raised an issue with the Ministry that the list of duties/taxes mentioned under Rule 3 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 covers only section 66 of the Finance Act, 1994 and does not mention section 66A of the Finance Act, 1994. Since Section 66A refers to payment by recipient of service imported from abroad, under reverse charge mechanism, in the absence of a specific mention of this Section in Rule 3, any credit of such tax paid would be illegal.
It was further mentioned that CERA has objected to the clarification issued by the Board vide letter F.No.BI/4/2006-TRU dated 19th April, 2006 wherein it was clarified that if such imported service is used as input for providing any taxable output service, the service tax paid thereon can be taken as input credit, in the absence of a specific mention of section 66A in Rule 3.
The Ministry examined this matter and it is clarified that the provisions under section 66A state that in case service is provided from abroad and received in India such taxable service shall be treated as if the recipient had himself provided the service in India, and accordingly all the provisions of Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994 would apply. Therefore, it is clear that section 66A is not a charging section by itself. It only creates a legal fiction to deem import of service as provision of service within India so that the provisions of Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994 can be applied. Section 66 remains the charging section even for import of services.
In view of this, it is clear that there is no mistake or omission in the relevant provisions of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 and credit of service tax paid on imported services should be allowed if they are in the nature of input services. It is further advised that the CERA objection on the subject should be replied accordingly.
Such an important clarification explaining the clear position of law by the Ministry/Board is indeed commendable. But why is it that the Ministry/Board does not give up the habit of hiding such important clarifications from the stakeholders. Is it not incumbent on the Ministry/Board to make this clarification public?
Further, does the Ministry/Board think that this issue is only confined to Mumbai and has no relevance for the service recipients in the rest of the country? While a copy of this clarification is marked to the Director General, Service Tax for informing the field formations, what about the service recipients who are at the receiving end across the country?