2013 (7) TMI 439 - AT - Service Tax

Cenvat Credit - Services used by the appellant as input service were disregarded by the Adjudicating Authority - Service tax paid on such services was not allowed to be set off against excise duty liability in respect of products manufactured by it - Held that - Not any inquiry done from the end of the service provider to ascertain the nature of service provided and whether such service was consumed either in manufacture or providing output service by the appellant - Service tax levy being destination based consumption tax - necessary for record to see the destination of service so consumed to consider admissibility of Cenvat credit claimed applying relevant tests Appeal remanded to learned Adjudicating Authority

Issues:
1. Disregard of five services by Adjudicating Authority for setting off service tax against excise duty liability.
2. Nature and purpose of services availed by the appellant.
3. Lack of establishment of relevancy of claimed input services with manufacture or output service.
4. Absence of inquiry by Adjudicating Authority from service providers to ascertain the nature and consumption of services.
5. Requirement for proper inquiry and tests to determine the genuineness and admissibility of Cenvat credit claimed.
6. Remand of the appeal to the Adjudicating Authority.

Analysis:

1. The appellant contended that services like Broadcasting, Fashion Designing, Online data access, Share transfer agent, and Asset portfolio management were essential for their business. However, the Adjudicating Authority denied setting off service tax against excise duty liability for these services.

2. The appellant explained that Broadcasting service was used for product advertisement, Fashion Designing for booking sales through TV channels, Online data service for market knowledge, Share transfer service for share transfers, and Asset management for dealing with surplus funds and investments.

3. The Tribunal found that the Adjudicating Authority did not appreciate the relevance of the claimed input services to the manufacturing or output services of the appellant. The nexus between the services and the business operations was not established with tangible evidence.

4. It was noted that the Adjudicating Authority failed to conduct inquiries from service providers to determine the nature and consumption of the services by the appellant. The destination-based consumption tax required understanding the destination of services for considering Cenvat credit admissibility.

5. The Tribunal emphasized the need for proper inquiry and tests to verify the genuineness and admissibility of the Cenvat credit claimed. It was suggested that inquiries should include examining contracts between parties and visual evidence if available.

6. The appeal was remanded to the Adjudicating Authority for further inquiry and clarification on the nature of services like Online data access, Share transfer agent, and Asset portfolio management. The appellant was instructed to cooperate during the re-adjudication process to ensure a fair outcome.

This detailed analysis highlights the issues raised in the judgment, the arguments presented by the appellant, the findings of the Tribunal regarding the lack of evidence and inquiry, and the decision to remand the appeal for further investigation by the Adjudicating Authority.

← Previous Next →