2019 (2) TMI 486 - AT - Service Tax

CENVAT Credit - service rendered but service tax not paid - contravention of Rule 4(7) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 - Held that - Undisputedly, the appellant had received services from M/s DBC Port Logistics Ltd. during the relevant period 2014-15. Admittedly against the total amount raised in the invoices for providing input services to the appellant, there was short payment of ₹ 1,23,08,514/- till 31.3.2015. Also it is accepted by the appellant that even though the amount was not paid by the appellant for more than 90 days, but they availed CENVAT Credit of ₹ 15,21,332/- attributable to the unpaid amount. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against Order-in-Appeal passed by Commissioner of Central Goods & Service Tax
- Availment of CENVAT Credit against unpaid service charges
- Alleged contravention of Rule 4(7) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004
- Dispute regarding deficiency in service and non-payment of service charges
- Payment of outstanding dues and interest on CENVAT credit
- Reference to precedent judgments

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against an Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner of Central Goods & Service Tax regarding the availment of CENVAT Credit against unpaid service charges. The appellant, engaged in Freight Forwarding and Cargo Handling services, had availed credit against invoices from a service provider but failed to pay the service charges, leading to a demand for recovery along with interest and penalty. The appellant contended that the non-payment was due to a dispute over deficiency in service, and the outstanding amount was later paid, supported by a Chartered Accountant's certificate. The appellant argued that there was no contravention of Rule 4(7) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The Advocate referred to a relevant Tribunal judgment to support their case.

During the hearing, it was established that there was indeed a shortfall in payment to the service provider, resulting in the availment of CENVAT Credit. The appellant acknowledged the delayed payment but clarified that the entire outstanding amount was settled at a later date. The Advocate reiterated the reasons for non-payment, citing a dispute over service quality. The Tribunal noted the payment made on 01.01.2016 and the discharge of interest on the availed CENVAT Credit, substantiated by a Chartered Accountant's certificate. The Tribunal, in line with precedent judgments, found no merit in confirming the recovery of credit and imposition of penalty. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside regarding the demand and penalty, allowing the appeal in that regard.