2009 (3) TMI 145 - AT - Service Tax

Cenvat Credit - Commissioner (Appeals) has observed that appellant have produced merely receipts which showed only gross amount without any service tax registration number and he held that this cannot be considered as sufficient to allow the Cenvat credit held that - while the documents submitted before the Tribunal showed the service tax registration number on the receipts it cannot be said with certainty that the same were produced before the authority. Further whether the documents issued fulfil the requirement of the law or not is also required to be considered matter remanded.

Summary

Issues:
1. Rejection of Cenvat credit on service tax paid by the MSO.
2. Penalties under Sections 76, 77, and 78.
3. Verification of documents for eligibility of Cenvat credit.
4. Consideration of reasonable cause for waiver of penalty under Section 80.

Analysis:
1. The appellant, in this case, was required to pay service tax on cable operator services. The appellant obtained services from the MSO and provided them to customers. Upon being informed by the department about the liability of service tax, the tax was paid with interest. The appeal was against the rejection of Cenvat credit on service tax paid by the MSO, which the appellant was entitled to while paying the service tax and penalties under Sections 76, 77, and 78.

2. The Chartered Accountant representing the appellant submitted various documents as evidence of service tax paid to the MSO, claiming entitlement to Cenvat credit. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) observed that the receipts produced by the appellant only showed the gross amount without any service tax registration number. The lower authorities did not consider these receipts as sufficient evidence to allow the Cenvat credit. The Tribunal noted discrepancies between the documents submitted before them and the observations of the Commissioner. Due to this uncertainty, the matter was deemed to require remand back to the Original Adjudicating Authority for verification.

3. The issue at hand involved penalties and the eligibility for Cenvat credit. The Tribunal acknowledged the presence of the service tax registration number on the receipts submitted before them, but questioned whether these documents were also presented before the lower authority. Additionally, the compliance of the documents with legal requirements needed to be assessed. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the stay petition and remanded the matter back to the Original Adjudicating Authority for a thorough examination of the documents regarding the appellant's claim for Cenvat credit and determination of eligibility. The consideration of a reasonable cause for the waiver of penalty under Section 80 was also directed to be re-evaluated by the Original Adjudicating Authority, granting the appellant a fair opportunity to present their case.

This comprehensive analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues addressed, the arguments presented, and the Tribunal's decision to remand the matter for further verification and consideration.