2018 (4) TMI 964 - AT - Service Tax

CENVAT credit - duty paying documents - denial for the reason that taxpaying documents relating to the period prior to taking centralized registration for the period during which are particular branch was not registered - Held that - in the case of Manipal Advertising Services Versus CCE Mangalore 2009 (10) TMI 434 - CESTAT BANGALORE wherein the Division Bench of this Tribunal held under the similar facts and circumstances where credit was availed on invoices issued in the name of branch offices denied by Revenue as the assessee had not included the same under centralized registration. It was held that there being no dispute that assessee having centralized billing and accounting system at Manipal and said office was registered and Service Tax liability was discharged from the centralized registered office and the documents on which Cenvat credit was taken and payment was made from the premises of centralized registration. It was held that the credit was allowable - credit allowed. CENVAT credit - Documents (telephone and mobile bills) in the name of others/ or other address - Rule 4A of Service tax Rules read with Rule 9 of Cenvat credit Rules 2004 - Held that - the telephone services relating to the necessity of business of the appellant thus Service Tax paid by the appellant by way of reimbursement to its employees the credit was properly allowable - credit allowed. CENVAT credit - denial on the ground that appellant did not produce the relevant documents in support of the credit - Held that - this ground is vague as there is no list of invoices and/or entries in the Cenvat credit register which are sought to be denied - this ground is allowed by way of remand with a direction to the Adjudicating Authority to give the list of relied upon documents in support of this amount and/ or the details relating to this amount so that the appellant can meet the objection of the Revenue - matter on remand. CENVAT credit - credit being taken on E-bills/Xerox Copies of Bills - Rule 9 of Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 - Held that - From perusal of Rule 9 of Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 it states that the Cenvat credit shall be taken by the manufacturer or the provider of output service or input service distributor as the case may be on the basis of any of the named documents like invoices a supplementary invoice bill or challan issued by a provider of output service in terms of provisions of Service Tax Rules 1994 - rules does not mandate that credit can only be availed in respect of original bills - credit allowed. CENVAT credit - transportation of diesel to the telephone towers of the clients - Held that - The appellant is entitled to reimbursement of such amount from the principal being expenses incurred for carrying the diesel from the petrol pumps to the mobile towers - the said services are an essential input service for rendering the output service of maintenance of mobile towers - credit allowed. CENVAT credit - No correlation/ improper Bills for Maintenance of Xerox Machine/ Outdoor catering Taxi - Held that - whole issue of 37, 882/- remanded to the Adjudicating Authority to be considered after giving adequate opportunity to the appellant in accordance with law. Appeal allowed in part and part matter on remand.

Summary

Issues:
1. Disallowance of Cenvat credit on various grounds.

Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT ALLAHABAD involved the disallowance of Cenvat credit on multiple grounds. The appellant was alleged to have availed Cenvat credit on improper documents without possession of proper documents, against the provisions of Cenvat Credit Rules 2004. The issue spanned various disallowed amounts, including credit documents prior to centralized registration, documents in the name of others, documents not produced, credit taken on Xerox copies of bills, bills for transport of diesel to clients, excess Cenvat credit taken, and no correlation/improper bills for maintenance of Xerox machine/outdoor catering taxi.

The Show Cause Notice (SCN) was issued invoking the extended period of limitation, alleging improper availing of Cenvat credit. The Additional Commissioner confirmed the disallowance with interest and penalty. Upon appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the disallowance but allowed repair and maintenance credit. The Tribunal considered the grounds raised by the appellant, including the limitation issue.

Upon detailed analysis, the Tribunal found:
1. The Cenvat credit related to branches included in centralized registration was allowable, citing a similar ruling.
2. The credit for telephone and mobile bills in employees' names was allowable as they were essential for business.
3. The disallowed amount for lack of produced documents was remanded for clarification.
4. Credit taken on E-bills/Xerox copies was allowed as per Cenvat Credit Rules.
5. Bills for transportation of diesel for maintaining mobile towers were considered essential input services.
6. The appellant did not contest a certain amount, which was recorded accordingly.
7. The issue of improper bills for maintenance and repair was remanded for re-computation.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal in part, holding specific amounts of Cenvat credit as allowable based on the detailed analysis of each issue raised. The decision was made after considering all submissions and relevant legal provisions.