2018 (1) TMI 154 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - credit availed on the basis of photocopies which are not having full details - Held that - the fact of payment of service tax by the service provider stands verified by the Jurisdictional Central Excise Authorities and as such denial of the same on the technical ground that it was only the photocopy invoices which was produced, cannot be appreciated - matter remanded to Original Adjudicating Authority for verification of the subsequent details filed and produced by the assessee with the invoices issued by M/s Global Weighing Technologies. Clandestine removal - loss of sugar - Held that - Inasmuch as in the present case the Revenue has not produced any evidence that the said processing loss was not actual and the appellant had removed such sugar from their factory without payment of duty - I uphold the said confirmation of demand - forthe plea of limitation, which has not been adverted to, the appeal is partly allowed and partly remanded in the above manner. Appeal allowed in part and part matter on remand.

Summary

Issues:
1. Availment of Cenvat credit on service tax paid based on photocopies lacking full details.
2. Denial of credit on the ground of incomplete invoices for security services.
3. Confirmation of demand due to sugar loss during reprocessing without remission application.

Analysis:

1. The dispute in the appeal pertained to the availment of Cenvat credit on service tax paid by M/S Global Weighing Technologies based on photocopies without full details. The appellant argued that the invoices were verified by Central Excise Officers, indicating no dispute on service tax payment, receipt, and utilization. The presiding Member found the denial of credit unjustified, as the payment of service tax by the provider was verified, leading to a ruling in favor of the appellant.

2. Another aspect involved the denial of credit for security services from M/s Haier Security Services due to incomplete invoices lacking service tax details and provider's registration number. Subsequently, the appellant provided the registration number and tax payment details, which were rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals) for not being available during adjudication. The Member emphasized that procedural violations should not deny substantial benefits if evidence shows tax payment and service utilization. The matter was remanded for verification based on the additional details provided.

3. A demand confirmation of ?8,845 for sugar loss during reprocessing was challenged by the appellant, arguing that the loss was due to processing and not liable for duty as the sugar did not materialize. The appellant contended the loss was less than stated. Citing precedent, the Member held that processing loss does not imply duty evasion unless proven. As the Revenue failed to show such evasion, the demand confirmation was overturned. The appeal was partly allowed and remanded, with no discussion on the limitation plea due to the favorable ruling on merits.