2017 (2) TMI 264 - AT - Service Tax

CENVAT credit - denial on the ground that the appellant should not have taken service tax credit at Nagpur for the services received in Pune. Only the Nagpur premises have been registered whereas the invoices indicate the service recipient at the Pune address - Held that - the appellants have failed to establish nexus and clearly communicated the nature of services provided by them and why there is no nexus between the services provided by them and the services received by them. Even in grounds of appeal there is no clarity. In view of the above, I am unable to hold that there is any nexus between the input service and the services provided by the appellant. Accordingly, the credit of input is not available to the appellant - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
- Denial of CENVAT Credit for input services received in a different location
- Lack of nexus between input services and output services

Denial of CENVAT Credit for input services received in a different location:
The case involved M/s Patwardhan Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. appealing against the denial of CENVAT Credit for input services received in Pune while being registered in Nagpur. The dispute arose as the invoices indicated the service recipient as Patwardhan Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Pune, leading the authorities to question the credit availed in Nagpur. The Commissioner (Appeals) disallowed the credit, emphasizing the need for separate registration if business is conducted from multiple premises. The matter was remanded to determine where the input services were received and their nexus with output services. The lower authorities held against the appellant, concluding that the input services lacked a clear connection with the output services, ultimately leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

Lack of nexus between input services and output services:
The input services in question pertained to supervision of Toll charges at Alibagh Toll Centre, with the appellant involved in procuring contracts on a commission basis. The authorities found no nexus between the input services and the output services provided by the appellant. The Order-in-Original highlighted the lack of documentary evidence supporting the appellant's claim of a clear connection between the input and output services. The Order-in-Appeal further emphasized the appellant's failure to provide sufficient evidence, such as contracts with relevant parties, to establish the nature of services rendered. The appellate tribunal found that the appellant failed to demonstrate the nexus between the input services received and the services provided, resulting in the dismissal of the appeal due to the inability to establish a connection between the input and output services.