2012 (9) TMI 526 - AT - Service Tax

Power of commissioner to remand the matter input service credit - no reason to deny the Cenvat credit simply on the ground that the invoices have been issued in the name of Head office address Held that - In respect of all the input service invoices raised in the name of appellant s Hyderabad Office, the adjudicating authority should verify invoices, purchase orders and any other document(s) submitted by the appellants and confirm on the basis of it as to whether the services are given in Pune Unit or otherwise - Commissioner (Appeals) has passed an appropriate order in accordance with law and, therefore, the matter needs re-quantification/verification at the end of the adjudicating authority.

Summary

Issues:
1. Power of Commissioner (Appeals) to remand the matter to the adjudicating authority.

Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai was filed by the Revenue challenging the impugned order on the grounds that the Commissioner (Appeals) did not have the power to remand the matter to the adjudicating authority. The Tribunal observed that the appeal could be disposed of at that stage and decided to consider both the stay application and the appeal together.

The Commissioner (Appeals) had held that the appellants were entitled to avail Cenvat credit for input services utilized in their Pune Unit, even though the invoices were issued in the name of the Head office at Hyderabad. The Tribunal noted that the Commissioner (Appeals) had sent the matter back to the adjudicating authority for verification and quantification of the credit available to the respondents. Citing a precedent decision, the Tribunal agreed with the Commissioner (Appeals) that the matter required re-quantification and verification by the adjudicating authority to determine the actual amount of CENVAT credit available to the respondent.

Based on the above analysis and following the precedent decision, the Tribunal concluded that the Commissioner (Appeals) had passed an appropriate order in accordance with the law. Therefore, the Tribunal disposed of the appeal and stay application as directed in the impugned order, emphasizing the need for re-quantification and verification of the CENVAT credit available to the respondent by the adjudicating authority.