9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (1) TMI 1336 - AT - Service TaxCENVAT credit - duty paying invoices - the said credit is not available as the appellant had not produced the proper invoices and documents on the basis of which the same was availed - scope of SCN - Held that - it was not open to the adjudicating authority to travel beyond the allegations made in the SCN and to deny the credit based on an altogether new ground. The adjudicating authority has also disallowed the credit of ₹ 94,611/- as excess credit availed. Learned advocate has tried to establish the figures of the entire credit availed and the credit attributable to each and every service and submits that there is no reason for the Commissioner to come to the finding of the excess credit - appeal allowed by way of remand.
Issues:
Late filing of service tax returns and late payment of service tax, CENVAT credit dispute, denial of CENVAT credit on certain grounds, excess credit availed. Late Filing and Payment Dispute: The appellant, a registered service provider under Banking and Other Financial Services and Business Auxiliary services, faced a dispute regarding late filing of service tax returns and late payment of service tax from October 2005 to March 2006, leading to proposed confirmation of interest. The issue of CENVAT credit of approximately Rs. 2.27 crores was also raised due to the lack of proper invoices and documents. The Tribunal had settled the interest dispute in a previous order, but the CENVAT credit matter was remanded for further consideration. The appellant provided a statutory auditor's certificate confirming the payment of service tax liability to the service provider, which the Tribunal deemed as evidence for eligibility of CENVAT credit. The matter was sent back to the Adjudicating Authority for a fresh review based on the auditor's certificate. Denial of CENVAT Credit: In the subsequent order by the Commissioner, the CENVAT credit of Rs. 36,04,329/- was denied on the grounds that certain input services were deemed non-cenvatable. The appellant contended that the documentary evidence's validity for granting CENVAT credit was not disputed, but the credit was disallowed for services like e-filing of income tax returns, car repair, generator rent, printing, and clearing charges. The appellant argued that the Commissioner went beyond the show-cause notice's scope by rejecting the credit on different grounds, contrary to the Tribunal's directions to consider the auditor's certificates. The appellant highlighted that various decisions supported the cenvatability of the disputed services. Excess Credit Dispute: Moreover, the Commissioner disallowed Rs. 94,611/- as excess credit availed without clear justification. The appellant challenged this decision, emphasizing the lack of clarity on how the excess credit amount was determined. The Tribunal found merit in the appellant's contentions, noting that the Commissioner's decision on excess credit lacked proper explanation. The matter was remanded to the Commissioner for a reexamination of the alleged excess credit, with the appellant given the opportunity to present relevant figures in support of their case. In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the appellant's arguments regarding the denial of CENVAT credit and excess credit availed, emphasizing the need for decisions to align with the show-cause notice allegations and established legal precedents supporting the cenvatability of the disputed services. The Commissioner was directed to review the excess credit issue with clarity and fairness, ensuring the appellant's right to present their case effectively.
|
