9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (3) TMI 1142 - AT - Central ExciseCENVAT credit - duty paying documents - Held that - the said CENVAT credit availed on the invoices of M/s Reliance Communications cannot be denied to appellant only on the ground that the said invoices do not indicate the name of the appellant herein - The lower authorities have not denied the fact that the invoices are in the name of head office of the appellant. If that be so, CENVAT credit cannot be denied on the said invoices. As regards the invoices of M/s Inter-Arch Builders, the bill is for differential amount without indicating anything as to the service tax registration number, invoice number, etc. and is without any proper details as to what for the differential amount has been paid. In the absence of any such details, the CENVAT credit of ₹ 48,072/- is correctly denied to the appellant - Same findings are applicable to the other amount on which CENVAT credit of ₹ 14,688/- has been denied - interest upheld - penalty set aside. Appeal disposed off - decided partly in favor of appellant.
Issues: Denial of CENVAT credit on duty paying documents; Dispute over invoices of service providers; Denial of CENVAT credit on certain input services
Denial of CENVAT credit on duty paying documents: The appeal challenged the denial of CENVAT credit to the appellant based on various allegations in the show cause notice. The appellant contested that the duty paying documents were in their name, even though some were in the appellant's old name. The appellant argued that the invoices contained the appellant's corporate office address and should not lead to denial of CENVAT credit. The Tribunal found merit in the appellant's contentions, emphasizing that services for which service tax was paid were eligible for CENVAT credit, especially when the services were essential for the appellant's operations. The Tribunal ruled that if the invoices were in the name of the appellant's head office, the CENVAT credit could not be denied solely based on the name discrepancy. Dispute over invoices of service providers: Regarding the invoices of M/s Inter-Arch Builders, the Tribunal noted that the invoices lacked essential details such as service tax registration number and invoice specifics. Consequently, the CENVAT credit on these invoices was correctly denied. The Tribunal also upheld the denial of CENVAT credit on other amounts due to insufficient details. The Tribunal ordered the recovery of confirmed amounts with interest but set aside penalties. The judgment highlighted the importance of invoices containing proper details to support the availed CENVAT credit. Denial of CENVAT credit on certain input services: The dispute focused on the period from January 2008 to November 2008 concerning the availment of CENVAT credit on specific input services totaling ?70,331. The Tribunal sided with the appellant's arguments that the CENVAT credit on M/s Reliance Communications' invoices should not be denied solely due to the absence of the appellant's name. The Tribunal emphasized that services with paid service tax, like the installation of landlines, were eligible for CENVAT credit, especially when benefiting the appellant's operations. The judgment underscored the importance of considering the nature of services provided and the relevance of service tax payments in determining CENVAT credit eligibility. In conclusion, the Tribunal partly allowed and partly rejected the appeal, emphasizing the significance of proper documentation and the nexus between services received, service tax payments, and CENVAT credit eligibility.
|
