2011 (5) TMI 755 - AT - Central Excise

Waiver of pre-deposit - wrong availment of credit of service tax Held that - non-mentioning of the service tax registration number by the input service supplier cannot be a ground to deny credit to the assessees, nothing to contradict the stand of the assessees that the sale takes place when the goods are laden on board the vessel at the port and since the place of removal is the port, the assessee are prima facie entitled to this amount of credit, pre-deposit waived

Summary

Issues:
1. Waiver of pre-deposit of service tax credit amount.
2. Denial of credit due to missing service tax registration number by input service supplier.
3. Denial of credit for lack of proof of sale taking place at the point of destination.
4. Availment of credit based on invoices with the address of the Head Office not registered as an input service distributor.

Analysis:
1. The judgment addresses the application for waiver of pre-deposit of Rs. 8,23,865 representing alleged wrong availment of credit of service tax during April 2009. The denial of bulk demand of Rs. 7,61,010 was based on missing details in documents provided by input service suppliers. However, upon review of relevant invoices, it was found that necessary details such as supplier's address, service category, and recipient's address were clearly mentioned. The judge ruled that the non-mentioning of the service tax registration number by the input service supplier should not be a valid reason to deny credit to the assessee.

2. Regarding the denial of credit amounting to Rs. 23,301, the reason provided was the lack of documentation proving that the sale took place at the point of destination and that ownership of goods remained with the appellants until delivery. The judge noted that there was no evidence contradicting the assessee's claim that the sale occurred when goods were loaded onto the vessel at the port. As the place of removal was the port, the assessee was deemed prima facie entitled to this credit amount.

3. The denial of credit amounting to Rs. 39,274 was based on invoices with the address of the Head Office, which was not registered as an input service distributor. However, the judge referenced a previous decision by the Tribunal in Chemplast Sanmar Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, LTU, Chennai, where a similar case warranted waiver. Consequently, the judge waived the pre-deposit of the amount in question and stayed the recovery pending the appeal.

In conclusion, the judgment provides a detailed analysis of the issues related to the denial and waiver of service tax credit amounts, emphasizing the importance of proper documentation and legal precedents in determining the eligibility of the assessees for the credits in question.