2018 (5) TMI 1224 - AT - Service Tax

CENVAT credit - duty paying documents - denial of credit on the ground that receipt is not proper documents to avail credit - Held that - the Commissioner(Appeals) has denied the CENVAT credit by merely holding that receipt is not a proper document under Rule 9(1) (a) to (g) of CCR. Since the appellant has produced all the documents justifying the availment of the CENVAT credit of ₹ 5,624/-, the denial of credit is not justified - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Disallowance of CENVAT credit by the Commissioner (Appeals) for service tax paid on input services.
2. Rejection of CENVAT credit by the Commissioner (Appeals) based on the lack of proper documents.
3. Appeal against the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) by the appellant.

Analysis:
1. The appellant, a manufacturer of optical fibre cables, availed credit of service tax paid on input services rendered by CHA and their sub-contractors for the period September 2012 to December 2013. A show-cause notice was issued demanding reversal of credit irregularly availed, leading to disallowance of credit by the original authority to the tune of &8377; 37,205/-. The Commissioner (Appeals) partly allowed the appeal but disallowed credit of &8377; 5,624/ which was challenged in the present appeal.

2. The consultant for the appellant argued that the impugned order was unsustainable as it did not consider all documents produced by the appellant. The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the CENVAT credit of &8377; 5,624/- citing lack of proper documentation, specifically mentioning the absence of bills. The consultant contended that the Commissioner (Appeals) erred by only considering a receipt and not the accompanying documents, leading to the denial of credit. The appellant admitted inability to produce documents for a &8377; 19 transaction.

3. Upon hearing both parties and examining the records, the Judicial Member found that the Commissioner (Appeals) wrongly denied the CENVAT credit of &8377; 5,624/- based solely on a receipt without considering the supporting documents provided by the appellant. The Judicial Member noted that the appellant had submitted all necessary documents justifying the credit availed, which the Commissioner (Appeals) failed to acknowledge. Consequently, the Judicial Member allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order to the extent of &8377; 5,624/-, and dropped the interest and penalties imposed. The appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant for the disputed amount.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the issues involved, the arguments presented by both parties, and the decision rendered by the Judicial Member in favor of the appellant.