2018 (5) TMI 553 - AT - Service Tax

CENVAT credit - denial on the grounds that in some of the invoices address of the appellant was not mentioned and as such requirement of sub-rule (2) of Rule 9 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, was not complied with - Held that - it cannot be presumed that unless the facility of premises is provided by a Hotel/ Restaurant, it cannot be considered as input service - Service Tax paid on Restaurant service as input service credit allowed to the appellant. Matter remanded to the Original Authority in respect of disputed credit availed on the basis of such documents which have deficiency such as absence of the address of the appellant, etc., for verification by the Original Authority as provided under proviso to sub-rule (2) of Rule 9 of CCR 2004 - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Denial of Cenvat credit due to missing address in invoices.
2. Qualification of Mandap Keeping Services and Hotels/Restaurants Services as input services.

Analysis:
1. The appeal arose from an Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals-I), Meerut, proposing denial of Cenvat credit amounting to ?7,59,184 due to missing addresses in some invoices issued by the appellants. The issue revolved around the compliance with sub-rule (2) of Rule 9 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) disallowed the Cenvat credit for invoices lacking the appellant's address. The appellant challenged this decision before the Tribunal.

2. The second issue involved determining whether Mandap Keeping Services and Hotels/Restaurants Services could qualify as input services for Cenvat credit. The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) allowed Cenvat credit for services rendered by Hotels/Restaurants where facilities within the premises were utilized. However, credit for services where only lunch/dinner/food was supplied without premises utilization was denied. The appellant contended that organizing seminars with meals provided should also qualify as input services, challenging the presumption that premises utilization was necessary.

3. During the hearing, the Ld. Counsel for the appellant argued that the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner could allow Cenvat credit even if there were deficiencies in the documents, as per the proviso to sub-rule (2) of Rule 9. The counsel emphasized that the mere absence of premises utilization should not automatically disqualify services as input services. The Ld. AR for Revenue supported the impugned Order-in-Appeal dated 17-4-2015.

4. After considering the arguments, the Tribunal accepted the appellant's contention that the mere absence of premises utilization should not preclude services from being considered as input services. Accordingly, the Tribunal allowed Service Tax paid on Restaurant services as input service credit. The Tribunal remanded the remaining part of the proceeding to the Original Authority for verification of disputed credits based on deficient documents, such as those lacking the appellant's address, in accordance with the proviso to sub-rule (2) of Rule 9. The Original Authority was directed to verify such documents and allow Cenvat credit for invoices meeting the proviso's requirements.

5. In conclusion, the Tribunal partially allowed the appeal by recognizing Restaurant services as input services and remanding the verification of disputed credits for deficient documents back to the Original Authority for further examination and allowance based on the proviso to sub-rule (2) of Rule 9.