2018 (8) TMI 22 - AT - Service Tax

CENVAT Credit - Real Estate Agent Service - credit denied placing reliance on CBEC Master Circular No.96/7/2007-ST dated 23/08/2007 - Held that - The said Circular deals with availment of Cenvat credit of Service Tax paid on Commercial Construction Services and Works Contract Services whereas in the present case Service Tax was paid on Real Estate Agent Service - the said circular will not be applicable to the facts of the present case - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against Order-in-Appeal No. NOI/EXCUS/000/APPL/144/14 dated 25/07/2014 passed by Commissioner (Appeals), Customs & Central Excise, Noida.
- Admissibility of Cenvat credit on Service Tax paid on 'Real Estate Agent Service' by the appellant.
- Interpretation of CBEC Master Circular No.96/7/2007-ST dated 23/08/2007 in the context of the case.

Analysis:

The appeal before the Tribunal was challenging the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the admissibility of Cenvat credit on Service Tax paid by the appellant for 'Real Estate Agent Service'. The appellant availed Cenvat credit of Service Tax paid on Real Estate Agent Service by M/s Chopra Estate Agent for the purchase of property located at E-1, Sector-59, Noida. The issue arose when the authorities contended that the Service Tax availed by the appellant was not admissible as the appellant was operating from a different premises. The Original Authority confirmed the demand and imposed a penalty, which was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). The appellant argued that the denial of Cenvat credit was based on a circular relevant to 'Commercial Construction Services' and 'Works Contract Services,' which was not applicable in the present case.

Upon hearing the arguments, the Tribunal found that the Circular in question dealt with the availment of Cenvat credit for 'Commercial Construction Services' and 'Works Contract Services,' not 'Real Estate Agent Service' as in the present case. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the impugned order was not sustainable and allowed the appeal in favor of the appellant. The Tribunal ruled that the appellant shall be entitled to consequential relief as per the law. The judgment highlighted the importance of correctly interpreting relevant circulars and applying them to the specific services in question to determine the admissibility of Cenvat credit.