2017 (11) TMI 427 - AT - Service Tax

CENVAT credit - duty paying documents - denial on the ground that the bills raised by the service provider are in the name of the Project Manager and not directly in their name - Held that - the said plea of the appellant cannot be entertained at this stage and in as much as the appellant has not addressed any other argument in respect of the said amount and has not produced any evidence, the said amount has to be confirmed. As regards the Cenvat credit of ₹ 4,18,122/-, the sole ground of rejection of assessees claim is non-rectification of the bills. In terms of the earlier order the authorities were required to look into the parallel evidence to find out whether the services have been received by the appellant or not and have been consumed by them or not. The appellants have placed on record sufficient evidence to show that such payments for the services were made by them and the job order etc. Such evidences are required to be examined - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
- Denial of Cenvat Credit
- Rectification of Invoices
- Receipt and Consumption of Services
- Evidence Submission
- Rejection of Appeal
- Second Appellate Stage

Denial of Cenvat Credit:
The appellants, engaged in Banking Services, were issued three Show Cause Notices (SCNs) proposing to deny Cenvat Credit of ?32,91,615 as the bills were in the name of the Project Manager, not directly in their name. The Revenue proposed denying the credit as the invoices were deemed ineligible. The original adjudicating authority confirmed the demand, but on appeal, relief was granted for ?22.00 lakhs after rectifying the invoices. However, ?10.00 lakhs credit was rejected for lack of evidence of services actually received and consumed by the appellants.

Rectification of Invoices:
The appellate authority granted relief based on rectified invoices where the appellants' names were included. The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal as the invoices were not rectified for the remaining amount. The appellants produced evidence of bills, direct payments, and bank statements to prove receipt and consumption of services, but the appeal was rejected due to lack of rectification.

Receipt and Consumption of Services:
The Tribunal remanded the appeal to examine evidence showing the receipt and consumption of services. The appellants provided evidence of payments and job orders to demonstrate that services were received and consumed by them, despite invoices being in the Project Manager's name.

Evidence Submission:
The appellants produced evidence amounting to ?4,18,122, emphasizing that services were received and consumed by them. The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal citing lack of rectification of invoices, disregarding the evidence provided by the appellants.

Rejection of Appeal:
The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal as invoices were not rectified, leading to the denial of around ?10.00 lakhs in Cenvat credit. The Tribunal found that the rejection solely based on non-rectification was improper and remanded the matter to the original adjudicating authority for further examination based on the evidence provided by the appellants.

Second Appellate Stage:
The appellant's plea regarding the unavailed ?6.00 lakhs credit was contested by the Revenue, arguing it was raised for the first time at the Tribunal stage. The Tribunal held that as the plea was not raised earlier and considering the practicality of verifying claims after 10 years, the plea could not be entertained. The Tribunal partially rejected and allowed the appeal, confirming the unaddressed amount while remanding the matter for further examination based on the evidence presented.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the issues of denial of Cenvat Credit, rectification of invoices, evidence submission, and the rejection of the appeal, providing a comprehensive overview of the legal proceedings and decisions made by the authorities involved.