2018 (4) TMI 72 - AT - Service Tax

Leasing of license charges - Held that - we find merit in the appeal so far as it relates to renting of immoveable property and the appeal on the said ground is allowed. Service tax collected from service receivers but not deposited - Held that - The appellant had clarified that they had deposited the said amount and also once again in the appeal memorandum claimed that they have deposited the said amount. In support of the said assertion the appellant have filed a copy of ST-3 return filed on 26.5.2010 - matter remanded to the original adjudicating authority for ascertaining facts and deciding the issue thereafter. CENVAT credit - duty paying documents - documents which are either zerox copies or not bearing the registration number of the service provider - Held that - In the appeal memorandum the appellant have given compliance of all these objections - Since the compliance has been made by the appellant the impugned order in so far it relates to the demand of reversal of cenvat credit and imposition of penalties thereon is set aside and matter remanded to the adjudicating authority to verify the compliance of various objection. Appeal allowed - part matter on remand.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Service tax on leasing of license charges
2. Non-payment of service tax collected from service receivers
3. Denial of Cenvat Credit

Analysis:

1. Service tax on leasing of license charges:
The Revenue filed a rectification of mistake (ROM) regarding an order related to service tax issues. The issues for determination included service tax amounts for specific periods. The ROM highlighted discrepancies in the original order, particularly the lack of findings on certain issues raised by the Revenue. The Tribunal acknowledged the oversight and modified the order to address the specific issues. The appeal was allowed concerning the renting of immovable property.

2. Non-payment of service tax collected from service receivers:
Another issue concerned the non-payment of a specific service tax amount collected by the appellant from service receivers. The appellant claimed to have deposited the amount, supported by a copy of the ST-3 return. The Tribunal found discrepancies in the confirmation of the demand and the appellant's assertion. Consequently, the demand and penalties related to this issue were set aside, and the matter was remanded for further investigation by the original adjudicating authority.

3. Denial of Cenvat Credit:
The denial of Cenvat Credit amounting to a specific sum was based on claims made on certain documents. The appellant had failed to produce documents before the audit officer, leading to the denial of credit. The Tribunal reviewed the objections raised and the compliance provided by the appellant. As the appellant had addressed most objections, the impugned order regarding the demand of credit reversal and penalties was set aside. The matter was remanded for the adjudicating authority to verify the compliance and make a fresh decision.

In conclusion, the appeal was partly allowed based on the specific terms outlined for each issue. The ROM application was also allowed, and the judgment was pronounced in court on a specified date.