9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (7) TMI 942 - AT - Service TaxCENVAT credit - duty paying invoices - it is alleged that the appellants have availed CENVAT credit based on input credit documents addressed to their Head Office situated in Thane, Maharashtra for the period October 2008 to March 2010 which appear to be irregular as the service provider of taxable service is not eligible to avail the credit when the said documents are in the name of the Head Office - Held that - the issue is squarely covered in favour of the appellant by various decisions wherein it has been consistently held that credit taken on the basis of invoices raised on the Head Office is admissible and the substantive right of the assessee with regard to the CENVAT credit should not be taken away on procedural infractions - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues:
1. Irregular availment of CENVAT credit based on input credit documents addressed to the Head Office. 2. Allegation of demand for irregularly availed CENVAT credit along with interest and penalty. 3. Bar on limitation for demanding CENVAT credit for the period from October 2008 to March 2010. 4. Sustainability of demand for interest. 5. Dispute regarding the admissibility of credit taken on the basis of invoices raised on the Head Office. Issue 1: Irregular availment of CENVAT credit based on input credit documents addressed to the Head Office The appellant, a holder of service tax registration, availed CENVAT credit based on input credit documents addressed to their Head Office, which was observed as irregular during an audit. The service provider was deemed ineligible to avail the credit when the documents were in the name of the Head Office. The appellant reversed the irregularly availed credit upon audit findings, leading to a show-cause notice for demanding the irregularly availed CENVAT credit, interest, and penalty. The original authority confirmed the demand, which was further contested in the appeal. Issue 2: Allegation of demand for irregularly availed CENVAT credit along with interest and penalty The appellant argued that the impugned order was unsustainable as it ignored binding judicial precedents. They contended that services covered in the invoices addressed to the Head Office were actually received for operations in Bangalore, justifying the credit taken in Bangalore. The appellant emphasized that the department failed to prove any duplication of credit and cited various decisions supporting the admissibility of credit based on Head Office invoices. Issue 3: Bar on limitation for demanding CENVAT credit for the period from October 2008 to March 2010 The appellant claimed that a significant part of the demand was time-barred as the show-cause notice was issued in 2011 for the period from October 2008 to March 2010. They argued that the demand was beyond the limitation period without any allegations of fraud, collusion, or suppression of facts against them, thus challenging the sustainability of the demand. Issue 4: Sustainability of demand for interest The appellant contended that the demand for interest was not justified as their ST-3 returns consistently showed a sufficient credit balance, exceeding the disputed amount. They argued that there was no basis for demanding interest due to the maintained credit balance, questioning the sustainability of the interest demand. Issue 5: Dispute regarding the admissibility of credit taken on the basis of invoices raised on the Head Office After considering submissions and various Tribunal decisions, the judicial member found in favor of the appellant. Citing precedents, the member held that the credit taken based on Head Office invoices was admissible. Emphasizing the substantive right of the appellant regarding CENVAT credit, the member ruled that procedural infractions should not negate this right, ultimately setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal with consequential relief. This detailed analysis covers the multiple issues involved in the legal judgment, addressing each aspect comprehensively and highlighting the arguments presented by both parties along with the final decision rendered by the judicial member.
|
