2019 (2) TMI 586 - AT - Service Tax

CENVAT Credit - input services - Business Support Service - principles of natural justice - Held that - Both the authorities have not properly understood the entire transaction and treated the amount of cenvat credit availed as output tax of the appellant. Further, the appellant has availed the credit not on the basis of debit note issued to the sister concern but the same was availed on the basis of valid invoices issued by the respective service providers. The cenvat credit availed by the appellant have been understood as output tax of the appellant and consequently demanded the tax, interest along with imposition of penalty. Further, the appellant has availed the cenvat credit on the basis of invoices issued by the service providers which is a valid document in terms of Rule 9(1)(a) of the CENVAT Credit Rules - Further the appellant has submitted the detailed worksheets justifying the availment of cenvat credit from the sister concern on the basis of invoice issued by the service provider and the result of which clearly shows that the appellant has taken proportionate credit from the sister concerns, which is perfectly valid in accordance with rules. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
- Eligibility of CENVAT credit availed by the appellant
- Proper understanding of the transaction by the authorities
- Imposition of penalty under Section 78(1)

Eligibility of CENVAT Credit:
The appeals were filed against the impugned order rejecting the appellant's appeals related to availing CENVAT credit. The appellant, a service tax registrant, availed CENVAT credit under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 for various services provided. The authorities alleged that the appellant availed irregular credit amounting to Rs. 18,48,613/- for the period April 2013 to March 2015. The appellant raised debit notes for service charges, collected service tax, and deposited it under different service categories. The authorities contended that the services did not qualify as 'Input Service' and deemed the credit ineligible. A show-cause notice was issued, leading to confirmation of the demand, interest, and penalty by the original authority, which was upheld by the Commissioner(Appeals).

Proper Understanding of Transaction:
The appellant argued that the impugned orders were unsustainable as they failed to appreciate the facts and submissions. The appellant contended that the authorities misunderstood the transaction, treating the availed CENVAT credit as output tax. The appellant clarified that the credit was based on valid invoices from service providers, not debit notes to sister concerns. Detailed justifications were provided, showing proportionate credit availed from sister concerns based on invoices. The appellant maintained that the credit availed was valid under Rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The authorities' failure to grasp these facts led to the demand for reversal of credit, interest, and penalty.

Imposition of Penalty:
The appellant argued against the imposition of penalty under Section 78(1), citing decisions supporting no intent to evade payment. The appellant emphasized proper disclosure of output service value and credit availed in returns, without any suppression of facts. The appellant relied on legal precedents to support their stance. The learned AR defended the impugned order, leading to a detailed consideration of submissions from both sides.

In the final judgment, the tribunal, after considering the submissions and material on record, found that the authorities misunderstood the transaction, treating the availed credit as output tax. It was noted that the credit was based on valid invoices, not debit notes, and the appellant had justified the proportionate credit availed from sister concerns. Consequently, the impugned orders were deemed unsustainable in law, leading to the setting aside of both appeals in favor of the appellant.