2014 (7) TMI 790 - AT - Service Tax

Denial of CENVAT Credit - Non production of invoices on which credit was availed - Invoices which were produced were not in the name of assessee - Partial amount allowed by Original authority - Held that - original adjudicating authority had considered the invoices submitted and in fact had allowed more than ₹ 40,000 credit to the appellant. The balance was disallowed on specific ground that the invoices not being in the name of the assessee or proof of payments have not been produced - both these issues have not been contested nor rebutted either before Commissioner (Appeals) or before this court. Since the appellants have failed to rebut the findings of the original adjudicating authority, the appellant has no case on the merits. Further from the details of personal hearing and the history of the approach of the appellant, it becomes clear that they were not serious in prosecuting the appeal - Decided against assessee.

Issues involved:
- Eligibility for CENVAT credit
- Proof of payment of service tax to service providers
- Rejection of CENVAT credit claim
- Appeal based on incorrect grounds
- Failure to produce necessary proof of payment
- Lack of seriousness in prosecuting the appeal

Eligibility for CENVAT credit:
The appellant, engaged in storage and warehousing services, claimed CENVAT credit of &8377; 2,18,135 for service tax liability. However, after a scrutiny, it was found that the appellant had not paid the service tax to the service providers, rendering the credit unavailable. The original adjudicating authority allowed only &8377; 40,839 as credit, disallowing the rest due to lack of proof of payment for a significant number of invoices. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision as the appellant failed to produce necessary proof of payment, leading to the rejection of the CENVAT credit claim.

Proof of payment of service tax to service providers:
The rejection of the CENVAT credit claim was primarily based on the absence of proof of payment of service tax to the service providers. The invoices submitted were not in the name of the assessee, and the appellant could not demonstrate payment for several invoices. The original adjudicating authority and the Commissioner (Appeals) both emphasized the importance of providing evidence of payment, which the appellant failed to do, resulting in the rejection of the claim.

Rejection of CENVAT credit claim:
The appellant's claim for CENVAT credit was rejected due to the lack of proof of payment for a significant number of invoices and the invoices not being in the name of the assessee. Despite being allowed some credit initially, the majority was disallowed, and a penalty was imposed for the remaining amount. The rejection was based on the failure to substantiate payment for the services rendered, leading to the denial of the credit claim.

Appeal based on incorrect grounds:
The appeal memorandum filed by the appellant was found to be inaccurate and misrepresented the facts. The grounds cited in the appeal did not align with the actual reasons for the rejection of the CENVAT credit claim. The appellant's failure to address the core issue of lack of proof of payment in the appeal led to a misrepresentation of the dispute involved, weakening the case presented.

Failure to produce necessary proof of payment:
Throughout the proceedings, the appellant failed to produce the required proof of payment to the service providers, despite being given opportunities by the lower authorities. The inability to substantiate the payment for the services availed led to the rejection of the CENVAT credit claim and reinforced the decision to disallow the credit based on the lack of supporting documentation.

Lack of seriousness in prosecuting the appeal:
The appellant's lack of seriousness in prosecuting the appeal was evident from their repeated non-appearance and failure to seek adjournments during the hearings. The history of the appellant's approach, coupled with the absence of efforts to contest the findings of the original adjudicating authority, indicated a lack of commitment to the appeal process. This lack of diligence and engagement further contributed to the rejection of the appeal.

← Previous Next →