2016 (12) TMI 1179 - AT - Service Tax

CENVAT credit - as per Rule 3(1) (xi) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 (CCR) credit of services availed before 10/9/2004 was not admissible - Revenue repeatedly requested the appellant to provide Credit Registers maintained for the year 2005-2006 but appellant did not co-operate - whether appellant entitled to CENVAT credit? - Held that - all the original computerised copies of RG 23A Pt. II and invoices are with the appellant. Jurisdictional Range Supdt. Asked appellant by communications dated 14/7/2009 and 10/8/2009 to provide copies of the said documents. Instead of making the desired documents available appellant is asking for certain details which may not be available with the department - no reason found to interfere with the order of the original authority - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
- Admissibility of Cenvat Credit for services received before 10/9/2004
- Failure to cooperate with authorities in providing necessary documents

Admissibility of Cenvat Credit for services received before 10/9/2004:
The appellant filed an appeal against the Order-in-Appeal No.56/JSR/2012 dated 18/04/2012 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Ranchi, upholding the Order-in-Original No. 01/S. Tax/2011 dated 31/1/2011. The Revenue argued that the appellant claimed Cenvat Credit of ?4,63,489.56 for services received before 10/9/2004, which was not admissible as per Rule 3(1)(xi) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The Revenue pointed out that the services rendered and invoice dates were before the specified date. Despite repeated requests, the appellant did not provide the Credit Registers for 2005-2006. The Learned A.R. strongly defended the first appellate authority's decision.

Failure to cooperate with authorities in providing necessary documents:
During the hearing, it was noted that the appellant did not appear. The Learned A.R. highlighted that the appellant failed to provide the required documents, including the original computerized copies of RG 23A Pt. II and invoices. The jurisdictional Range Superintendent requested these documents through communications dated 14/7/2009 and 10/8/2009, but the appellant did not comply. The Order-in-Appeal dated 18/4/2014 emphasized the appellant's reluctance to provide necessary documentation, indicating a lack of intention to prove innocence and a potential attempt to conceal the illegal availment of CENVAT Credit. The appellate tribunal found no reason to interfere with the original authority's decision, ultimately dismissing the appeal.