2014 (8) TMI 477 - AT - Service Tax

Denial of benefit of Cenvat credit - Invoices on the name of CHA or sub-contractor - Held that - If the bills of other agencies engaged by CHA are directly linked to the imports made by the assessee and CHA was only acting as a intermediary, the benefit of credit of service tax paid by the other agencies should not be denied to the appellant. As such I set aside the confirmation of demand on the said ground and remand the matter to the original adjudicating authority to verify the correctness of the statement made by the appellant and if the bills raised by the other agencies can be linked to the imports made by the appellant, the credit should be allowed. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Issues:
1. Denial of Cenvat credit on invoices with specific characteristics.
2. Appeal against the order of the original adjudicating authority.
3. Clarification on services received from CHA and other agencies.
4. Consideration of appellant's submission by lower authorities.
5. Remand of the matter for verification and allowance of credit if linked to imports.

Analysis:
1. The appellant, engaged in manufacturing activities, faced proceedings for denial of Cenvat credit amounting to &8377;52,536 on invoices falling under three categories: those with CHA or sub-contractor names and addresses, those with the appellant's name but the Manesar unit address, and those with party names but no address. The original adjudicating authority confirmed the demands, which were appealed by the appellant.

2. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed credit for invoices with the appellant's name and Manesar unit address or no address but denied credit for invoices with CHA or sub-contractor names. The appellant argued that CHA services were utilized for clearing imported raw materials, with CHA paying charges to other port agencies on the appellant's behalf. The CHA issued separate reimbursable bills without service tax, linked to import documents. The Tribunal noted this aspect was not adequately considered by lower authorities.

3. The Tribunal found that if the bills from other agencies, facilitated by CHA, were directly connected to the appellant's imports, and CHA acted as an intermediary, the appellant should be entitled to the service tax credit paid by these agencies. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the demand confirmation and remanded the matter to the original adjudicating authority for verifying the appellant's claims and allowing credit if the bills from other agencies were indeed linked to the appellant's imports.

4. The Tribunal emphasized that the lower authorities had not thoroughly examined the appellant's submissions regarding the link between the bills from other agencies and the appellant's imports. Therefore, a detailed verification was deemed necessary to determine the eligibility of the appellant for the service tax credit based on the interconnected nature of the transactions involving CHA and other agencies.

5. Ultimately, the Tribunal disposed of the appeal by remanding the matter for further verification and consideration, emphasizing the importance of establishing a direct connection between the services provided by other agencies, facilitated by CHA, and the appellant's import activities. The judgment was pronounced on 17-7-2012.

← Previous Next →