2011 (9) TMI 287 - AT - Service Tax

Short payment which was was made good by the Appellants in the next six months on their own - denial of CENVAT Credit on the ground that the invoices have not been submitted that goods have not been received - internal advice memo issued by their regional office would be sufficient for the purpose of availment of CENVAT credit - no evidence to show that capital goods have been received he says that they would produce relevant evidence before the Commissioner or satisfy the Commissioner that the goods have been received - Service Tax credit has been denied on the ground that the photocopies of documents were produced - Company Secretary submits that they have the original documents at present. The above submissions and our observation thereon would show that the matter is required to be re-considered by the Commissioner - remand the matter to the Commissioner for a fresh decision - Decided in the favour of appellant

Summary

Issues:
1. Short payment and interest demand for a specific period.
2. Denial of CENVAT credit due to lack of invoice submission and goods receipt evidence.
3. Dispute over Service Tax credit denial based on photocopies of documents.

Analysis:
1. The judgment addresses the first issue of short payment and interest demand. The Appellants acknowledged a shortfall of over Rupees Eighteen Lakhs for six months in 2006-2007, which they rectified in the subsequent six months. Despite this, the impugned order confirmed the short levy and demanded interest. The Company Secretary assured that the interest would be quantified and paid promptly. The Tribunal noted this discrepancy and directed a re-evaluation by the Commissioner, considering the Appellants' rectification efforts.

2. The second issue pertains to the denial of CENVAT credit due to missing invoices and goods receipt evidence. The Appellants cited a previous Tribunal decision to support their claim that an internal advice memo sufficed for CENVAT credit availment. However, the Commissioner insisted on original documents. The Appellants highlighted their central office's registration as a first stage dealer, similar to the Chennai unit's case where credit was allowed without prior registration. They committed to providing evidence of goods receipt and disputed the Commissioner's claim of excessive credit on capital goods. The Tribunal deemed this issue necessitating re-consideration by the Commissioner.

3. Lastly, the dispute over Service Tax credit denial based on photocopies of documents was addressed. The Company Secretary clarified that they possessed the original documents, contrary to what was submitted. The Tribunal found merit in the Appellants' arguments and directed the Commissioner to revisit this matter, ensuring a fair assessment considering the original documents. The judgment concluded by granting the Stay Petition and Appeal, remanding the case for a fresh decision by the Commissioner, emphasizing the Appellants' right to present their case adequately.