2018 (1) TMI 117 - AT - Service Tax

CENVAT credit - non-production of documents - Held that - the case needs to be remanded back because the documents which had been produced before me have not been produced before the adjudicating authority, therefore, I remand the case to the original authority to pass a de novo order after considering the evidence which the appellant may produce in support of his case - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against Commissioner (A)'s order partially allowing and partially dismissing appellant's appeal, denial of CENVAT credit on various services, rejection of credit on input services, demand of interest and penalty, contesting specific CENVAT credit denials, validity of documents supporting CENVAT credit, remand for further consideration of evidence.

Analysis:
The appeal was directed against the Commissioner (A)'s order partially allowing and partially dismissing the appellant's appeal, involving the denial of CENVAT credit on various services. The appellants had availed CENVAT credit on invoices not fitting the Rule 2 definition, including motor vehicles, penal rent, motor vehicle cess, irregular documents, and service tax on various services. The total irregular credit availed was &8377; 2552399/-, leading to a demand notice. The adjudicating authority rejected &8377; 24,71,051/- CENVAT credit on input services, citing improper documents and falling outside the definition. The Commissioner (A) allowed &8377; 14,29,605/- credit and rejected &8377; 10,41,446/-. Specific credits were contested, such as penal rent, motor vehicle cess, rent, and godown rent. The appellant argued that documents supporting the credit were valid, including receipts from New Mangalore Port Trust and certificates from authorities, not previously submitted.

The appellant contended that the impugned order lacked legal sustainability, not considering the input service definition correctly and deviating from binding judicial precedents. The Commissioner (A) denied credit on various services, some of which had been recognized as input services by tribunals and courts. The appellant did not contest credit on the residence of the Managing Director and warehouse, and service tax on tangible goods supply. The denial of credit on rent paid to NMPT was challenged, arguing that the receipt issued by NMPT was valid, inclusive of service tax, fulfilling the rental obligation. The appellant had additional documents supporting their entitlement to CENVAT credit, including a Chartered Accountant's certificate and letters confirming payments, not previously presented. The appellant requested a remand to submit these documents for justifying the credit availed.

The learned AR did not object to a remand for examining the additional documents supporting the appellant's case. After reviewing the submissions and evidence, the Tribunal decided to remand the case to the original authority for a de novo order considering the evidence the appellant may produce. The appeal was allowed by way of remand, emphasizing the need for a thorough review of the documents supporting the CENVAT credit claims. The operative portion of the order was pronounced in open court on 01/01/2018.