9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (10) TMI 577 - AT - Service TaxRefund of CENVAT Credit under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 Assessee holds that refund should not be denied on the grounds of incomplete information given in invoice and Department should take liberal approach in such cases Further contends denial of credit on the ground that services do not qualify as input services is not sustainable Respondent contends sub clause (1) of Rule 9 of the CENVAT Credit Rules provides for the details to be contained in the document, without these credit may be wrongly availed, hence rejection is proper Services provided are not eligible as input service to claim credit Held That - Credit cannot be denied on procedural lapses and denial of credit on the ground of incomplete address and invoices is unjustified and Appellant is eligible for credit on these invoices - Appellants are eligible for refund of credit in regard to all the impugned input services except medical services; decision in the case of Coca Cola India (P) Ltd. Vs. CCE Pune III 2009 (8) TMI 50 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT and CCE, Nagpur Vs. Ultratech Cement Ltd. 2010 (10) TMI 13 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT Appeal allowed and decided partly in favour of the assessee.
Issues:
Refund of CENVAT Credit of Service Tax paid on input services challenged. Analysis: 1. The appellants, engaged in various services and exporting, filed a refund claim for service tax paid on input services. The Adjudicating Authority partially allowed the claim. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld rejection based on incomplete invoices and lack of PAN based registration number, directing re-calculation of admissible credit before refund. 2. The direction to recheck unutilized CENVAT Credit was contested as unnecessary since the audit team had verified records. The Commissioner's directive was deemed beyond powers and set aside. 3. Denial of refund due to incomplete address on invoices was disputed. The appellants argued that even with city name, complete address was implied, supported by a Chartered Account Certificate. The circular emphasizing leniency for incomplete invoices was cited. The denial based on missing PAN based registration number was also challenged. 4. The Departmental Representative defended the denial, citing Rule 9 of CENVAT Credit Rules requiring specific details in documents to prevent wrongful credit availment. The importance of proper invoices for verification was stressed. 5. Upon review, it was found that the transactions were not disputed, and procedural lapses in invoices were noted. The necessity of correct details for verification was acknowledged, but it was clarified that procedural lapses should not lead to credit denial, citing precedents. 6. The denial of credit on the ground of services not qualifying as input services was analyzed. Various services like rent-a-cab, courier, guest house, FEA, maintenance, professional services, etc., were scrutinized. Precedents established that services related to business activities were eligible for credit, except for medical services deemed personal consumption. 7. The impugned order was set aside and modified to allow refund on defective invoices and various input services except medical services. Refund was granted for rent-a-cab, courier, guest house, power audit, FEA, maintenance, renting of equipment, hotel expenses, conference charges, cleaning services, and catering. 8. The appeal was partially allowed, granting refunds on eligible input services while sustaining the disallowance of medical services credit.
|
