2019 (2) TMI 578 - AT - Service Tax

CENVAT Credit - duty paying documents - invalid documents - denial on the ground that invoices issued in the name of Head Office, which was not registered as an ISD; Service Tax registration number is not mentioned; and credit denied on the invoices of Kingfisher Airlines showing that Service Tax payment has not been reflected in the invoices. Denial on the ground that invoices issued in the name of Head Office, but received and used in the local office, when Head Office is not registered - Held that - The issue is no more res integra and settled by various judgments of this Tribunal including M/s Biotor Industries Ltd. 2017 (2) TMI 1062 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD , where it was held that when it was found that full records were maintained and the irregularity, if at all, was procedural and when it was further found that the records were available for the Revenue to verify the correctness, the Tribunal, rightly did not disentitle the assessee from the entire Cenvat credit availed for payment of duty - credit allowed. Credit denied on the ground that missing Service Tax registration number in the invoices of the input supplier - Held that - The issue is covered by the judgment of this Tribunal in the case of M/s HCL Technologies Ltd. 2015 (9) TMI 1037 - CESTAT NEW DELHI , where it was held that non-mentioning of registration number of the service provider is only a procedural lapse and Credit cannot be denied on account of procedural lapse when substantive entitlement itself is not disputed - credit allowed. Credit denied on the invoices of Kingfisher Airlines showing that Service Tax payment has not been reflected in the invoices - Held that - Even though against the column - Tax paid , it is mentioned as pre-paid tax but not as Service Tay paid . However, on calculation of the amount of tax paid on the value of service mentioned, it is nothing but the rate of Service Tax paid as applicable on the gross taxable value mentioned in the respective invoice - all the pleas of the learned C.S. for the appellant needs to be scrutinized in the light of the C.A. certificate now produced claiming that the input services against respective invoices were received and used in providing the output services - matter placed on remand. Appeal allowed in part and part matter on remand.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against denial of CENVAT Credit on input services invoices issued by different airlines on various grounds.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Navi Mumbai. The appellants provided taxable output services under 'Transport of Goods by Air' and 'Business Support Service' categories. They availed CENVAT Credit of ?23,68,433/- on Service Tax paid on input services of Transport of Goods by Air from April 2006 to July 2008. A show-cause notice was issued alleging wrongful availment of credit on invalid documents. The demand was confirmed with interest and penalty after adjudication. The appeal was filed as a result of the rejection of their appeal by the learned Commissioner (Appeals).

The appellant's representative argued that the denial of the entire CENVAT Credit was unjustified. He highlighted specific amounts denied based on invoices issued by Spice Jet, Go Air, and Kingfisher Airlines. The argument included references to relevant judgments such as M/s Biotor Industries Ltd. and Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Dashion Ltd. The representative emphasized that credit should not be denied solely due to technical discrepancies in the invoices. The appellant produced a C.A. certificate to support the claim that the input services were received and utilized for providing taxable output services, making the credit admissible.

The Revenue's representative supported the findings of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) and suggested remanding the matter to the adjudicating authority for verification based on the evidence provided.

The Tribunal found merit in the appellant's contentions regarding the denial of CENVAT Credit on the invoices issued by different airlines. Specific grounds for denial were addressed individually, including issues related to the Head Office not being registered as an ISD, missing Service Tax registration numbers, and discrepancies in mentioning 'Service Tax' in the invoices. The Tribunal referred to previous judgments to support its findings. Ultimately, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal by remanding the case to the adjudicating authority for further scrutiny based on the evidence and C.A. certificate provided by the appellant.

In conclusion, the appeal was allowed by way of remand to the adjudicating authority for verification of facts in light of the observations made and the evidence presented during the proceedings.