9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (2) TMI 865 - AT - Service TaxEOU - CENVAT credit - input services - Outdoor catering services - Air Travel Agent Services - Rent-a-cab Services - Insurance services - Business Auxiliary Services - Business Support Services - Banking and Financial Services - Manpower Recruitment Agency Services - Maintenance and Repair Services - period involved is prior to 01.04.2011. Outdoor Catering Services - Air Travel Agent Services - Rent-a-Cab Services - Insurance Services - Held that - These services are held to be eligible for Credit in the assessee s own case in RR DONNELLEY INDIA OUTSOURCE PVT. LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CUSTOMS AND SERVICE TAX 2017 (3) TMI 16 - CESTAT BANGALORE - credit allowed. Time limitation - Held that - The allegation raised in the Show Cause Notice is that Credit is not admissible for the reason that the invoice is addressed to the erstwhile name of the company. An another unit had merged with the present assessee and therefore, there was some difference in the name and address of the assessee. The said reason cannot be a ground for rejection of Credit when there is no dispute with regard to the payment of service tax or availment of services. Credit denied on the ground that the invoice does not show the Registration number of the service provider - Held that - In the case of M/s. Imagination Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. 2011 (4) TMI 406 - CESTAT, MUMBAI , the said issue has been held in favour of the assessee - credit allowed. Demand of service tax on reimbursable expenses - Held that - The said issue has been held in favour of the assessee in the case of M/s. Intercontinental Consultants and Technocrats Pvt. Ltd. 2018 (3) TMI 357 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA and therefore, the demand cannot sustain. Demand of differential Interest - demand on the ground that there is a delay in realization of the cheque - Held that - The Tribunal in the case of M/s. Travel Inn India Pvt. Ltd. 2015 (6) TMI 626 - CESTAT NEW DELHI has categorically held that when the cheque has been realized, the date of presentation of the cheque in the treasury should be considered as the date of discharge of service tax as per Rule 6(2A) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 - demand of interest cannot sustain. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of CENVAT Credit on various services by the Department. 2. Eligibility of Credit on different services like Outdoor Catering, Rent-a-Cab, Air Travel Agent, Insurance, etc. 3. Dispute regarding the invoice addressing the erstwhile name of the company. 4. Denial of Credit due to missing service provider registration number on the invoice. 5. Demand of service tax on reimbursable expenses. 6. Differential interest demand due to delay in cheque realization. Analysis: Issue 1: Disallowance of CENVAT Credit The assessee was engaged in providing various services and had availed CENVAT Credit, which was challenged by the Department. The Original Authority dropped the demand for certain services based on limitation but disallowed Credit on others. The appellants approached the Tribunal, arguing that the disallowed services were essential for their business activities. Issue 2: Eligibility of Credit on Various Services The consultant for the assessee presented details of services with disputed Credit amounts for different periods. The Tribunal considered previous judgments in the assessee's favor regarding similar services and held that the Credit was eligible, especially for services like Outdoor Catering, Rent-a-Cab, Air Travel Agent, and Insurance services. Issue 3: Invoice Addressing the Erstwhile Company Name The Department raised concerns about invoices addressed to the previous company name due to a merger. The Tribunal found this reasoning insufficient to reject Credit when there was no dispute regarding service tax payment or service availing. Previous decisions supported the eligibility of Credit for services like Outdoor Catering, Rent-a-Cab, Air Travel Agent, and Insurance, regardless of the invoice details. Issue 4: Missing Service Provider Registration Number A demand for Credit denial was made due to the absence of the service provider's registration number on the invoice. Citing a relevant case, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, stating that the Credit should be allowed despite the missing registration number. Issue 5: Demand of Service Tax on Reimbursable Expenses The Department demanded service tax on reimbursable expenses, which the Tribunal found unjustified based on a previous case ruling in favor of the assessee. The demand was set aside as the expenses were not taxable. Issue 6: Differential Interest Demand A demand for differential interest was made due to delayed cheque realization. The Tribunal referred to a case precedent to determine the date of service tax discharge, ruling that the demand for interest was not valid and should be set aside. In conclusion, the Tribunal held that the disallowance of Credit was unjustified and set aside the impugned Order, along with associated interest and penalties. The assessee's appeals were allowed, while the Department's appeals were dismissed.
|
