2018 (7) TMI 618 - AT - Service Tax

CENVAT Credit - duty paying documents - case of Revenue is that since the invoices are addressed to SMF and not in the name of the respondent, credit is not eligible - Rule 9 of CENVAT Credit Rules - Held that - Proviso to Rule 9 of CENVAT Credit Rules states that whenever there is any doubt with regard to the requirement of necessary details in the documents for availing credit, the AC/DC has to verify the same and be satisfied that the same has been properly credited by the assessee - In the present case, the Commissioner (Appeals) has called for report from the range officer who has reported that the particulars as furnished by the Chartered Accountant is correct and it was found that these services were availed by the respondent and not by SMF. CENVAT Credit - Input Services - insurance, outdoor catering service, advertisement services etc. - Held that - These services except outdoor catering services were held to be eligible services for the respondent for the subsequent period - The outdoor catering services are eligible for credit for the reason that the period involved is prior to 1.4.2011 - credit allowed. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues involved:
Denial of CENVAT credit on ineligible documents, address of invoices, nature of services, eligibility of input services, appeal against demand of CENVAT credit.

Analysis:
The case involved a show cause notice proposing to deny CENVAT credit to the respondent based on various grounds, including availing credit on ineligible documents and services not addressed to the respondent. A corrigendum was issued revising the demand, leading to confirmation of a revised amount by the original authority, which was later set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals), prompting the department to file the current appeal.

The Revenue argued that the documents provided by the respondent were not proper, as invoices were addressed to a different entity and the services were considered ineligible input services. The respondent, on the other hand, contended that the services were essential for fulfilling contractual obligations under an Investment Management Agreement with the other entity. They provided detailed statements, verified by a Chartered Accountant and a range officer, to support their claim that the services were indeed availed by them and service tax was duly paid.

The main contention revolved around the address on the invoices, with the Revenue claiming that credit was not eligible due to the invoices being addressed to a different entity. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) verified the details and concluded that the services were indeed availed by the respondent, not the other entity. Regarding the eligibility of certain services like insurance and outdoor catering, the period in question was crucial, as the definition of 'input services' had a wider scope before a specific date. The Commissioner had previously deemed similar services eligible for the respondent in a subsequent period.

Ultimately, the Tribunal found no merit in the department's appeal, upholding the impugned order and dismissing the appeal. The decision was based on the verification of details, the nature of services provided, and the applicability of the rules and definitions during the relevant periods.