2016 (11) TMI 928 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - GTA service - commissioning and installation service - repair and maintenance service - improper documents - Held that - From the report, it can be safely concluded that the appellant has properly accounted the credit availed by them. The defect if any is only with regard to the particulars which are required to be included in the invoice. In para 12, the first appellate authority opines that appellant had not paid the service tax themselves and that it was paid by their Head Office and therefore the document is not in order. The report called for establishes that there is no dispute with regard to the service tax paid. Period of limitation - Held that - the Department has raised the demand invoking the extended period of limitation for which there is no evidence at all. I do find substance in this argument put forward by the learned counsel for appellant. Though it is alleged in the show-cause notice that the appellant has suppressed facts with intent to evade payment of duty, the records before me including the report filed by Department does not reveal any fact of suppression on the part of the appellants. Further it has also to be stated that the appellants have been filing their ST3 returns regularly. Department has failed to adduce any evidence to establish suppression of facts with intent to evade payment of duty. Taking these facts into consideration, I am of the view that the demand raised invoking the extended period is not sustainable. Therefore the impugned order is set aside as being time barred. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Availing CENVAT credit on improper documents.
2. Denial of credit on certain invoices.
3. Eligibility of services as input services.
4. Proper accounting of credit availed.
5. Grounds for denial of credit.
6. Argument on the ground of limitation.

Analysis:

1. The appellants availed CENVAT credit of duty paid on input services, but the Department claimed that some invoices were improper documents, leading to a show-cause notice for recovery of credit along with penalties and interest.

2. The original authority and Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the demand, interest, and penalty. The appellants, aggrieved by this decision, appealed to the Tribunal.

3. The appellant's counsel argued that the services in question were used to promote the overall business and should be considered eligible input services. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) denied credit based on improper invoices lacking necessary particulars as required by Rule 4A(2) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994.

4. The Tribunal directed the appellant to produce the subject invoices for verification. The Department reported that the invoices did not comply with the necessary details as per the rules but confirmed that the credit availed was properly accounted for.

5. The report highlighted that the disputed amount was not eligible as input service due to specific reasons related to the nature of the service provided. The Tribunal referenced previous cases to support the argument that non-registration as an Input Service Distributor or non-mention of ISD's name was not sufficient grounds to deny credit.

6. The appellant also raised the issue of limitation, claiming that the demand was made invoking an extended period without evidence of suppression to evade duty payment. The Tribunal agreed that there was no evidence of suppression and deemed the demand raised invoking the extended period as unsustainable, ultimately setting aside the impugned order as time-barred.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal with consequential reliefs, emphasizing the importance of proper documentation, eligibility criteria for input services, and adherence to the rules governing CENVAT credit.