2013 (10) TMI 249 - AT - Service Tax

Cenvat Credit - duty paying documents - Waiver of pre deposit - Banking service - Held that - document based on which credit has been taken is issued by an organization other than an organisation providing the service. But in the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that no loss of revenue has been made out and instead of considering the balance of convenience, it will be unfair to call pre-deposit from the applicant for making pre-deposit for admission of the appeal. - stay granted.

Summary

Issues: Cenvat credit eligibility for service tax paid on interbank transactions through NPCI statement.

Analysis:
The case involved a Schedule Bank that provided various facilities like ATM services, internet payments, and credit card services. The bank issued debit and credit cards that could be used in ATMs of other banks, with payments settled through the National Payments Corporation of India (NPCI). The bank received statements of service tax from NPCI and claimed Cenvat credit under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The Revenue contended that the credit availed was improper as the statements did not meet the requirements of Rule 4A of Service Tax Rules, 1994. The adjudicating authority confirmed a significant amount against the bank for the period Oct.'10 to Dec.'11, leading to the bank filing an appeal.

In the appeal, the bank argued that the reason for confirmation in the adjudication order differed from the one in the Show Cause Notice. The bank highlighted the proviso under Rule 41 of Service Tax Rules, 1994, which provided relaxations for banking companies regarding document requirements for claiming credit. The bank also referenced Rule 9(2) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, stating that relaxations could be made by the competent officer if the service had been utilized for providing output service. The bank emphasized that NPCI, being set up in the national interest by RBI, should be considered a valid source for credit information to avoid excessive paperwork and maintain the purpose of settling demands efficiently.

On the opposing side, the Revenue argued that Cenvat credit could only be claimed based on documents issued by the service provider, which was not the case here. The Revenue contended that the documents did not meet the required standards and suggested that Rule 9(4) should take precedence over Rule 4A of Service Tax Rules, 1994. The Revenue maintained that the mandatory requirements of Rule 9 had not been fulfilled, and therefore, the credit claimed based on those documents should not be allowed.

After considering both arguments, the Tribunal acknowledged that the documents for credit were issued by an organization other than the service provider. Despite this, the Tribunal found no loss of revenue and decided that it would be unfair to demand a pre-deposit from the bank for the appeal. Consequently, the Tribunal granted a waiver of pre-deposit for the dues arising from the order and stayed the collection of the dues until the appeal's final disposal.