9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (3) TMI 118 - AT - Service TaxCENVAT Credit - duty paying invoices - credit availed on the strength of invoices issued by service providers who are not registered with Department - scope of SCN - Held that - The impugned order is contrary to the SCN as well as the Order-in-Original because in the Order-in-Original, the issue of Rule 9(bb) was set aside whereas the Commissioner (A) has relied upon Rule 9(bb) and denied the credit which is beyond the SCN. Further, the provision of supplementary invoice is not applicable in the present case because in the present case, only invoices were issued and not the supplementary invoices. Further, in the case of Commissioner of Service Tax, Bangalore Vs. Kyocera Wireless (India) Pvt. Ltd., 2016 (4) TMI 799 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT it was held that registration with the Department not a pre-requisite for claiming credit. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues:
Appeal against rejection of CENVAT credit - Proper consideration of facts and law - Validity of invoices from unregistered service providers - Rule 9(bb) of CCR, 2004 - Time limit for registration - Denial of CENVAT credit - Applicability of supplementary invoices - Karnataka High Court judgments on registration requirement for CENVAT credit. Analysis: The appeal was filed against the rejection of CENVAT credit by the Commissioner (A) based on an impugned order. The appellant, registered under Construction Services, had taken credit based on invoices from unregistered service providers, leading to a demand of inadmissible credit. The Assistant Commissioner confirmed the demand, which was upheld by the Commissioner (A), prompting the appeal. The appellant argued that certain suppliers raised invoices before registration, citing Rule 9(1)(bb) of CCR and ST Rules regarding registration timelines and tax liability. Referring to legal precedents, the appellant contended that denial of credit may not be appropriate in such situations. In response, the Ld. AR supported the impugned order. However, the Tribunal found discrepancies in the order-in-original and the Commissioner (A)'s reliance on Rule 9(bb) to deny credit. The Tribunal clarified that only invoices, not supplementary invoices, were issued, and referenced a Karnataka High Court decision emphasizing that registration is not a prerequisite for claiming credit. Citing another case, the Tribunal reiterated that registration is not mandatory for credit claims, ultimately setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal. The judgment highlighted the importance of statutory provisions and legal precedents in determining the validity of CENVAT credit claims. The Tribunal's detailed analysis considered the legal arguments, factual circumstances, and relevant provisions to conclude that the impugned order was unsustainable in law. By emphasizing the lack of statutory restrictions on registration for claiming credit and aligning with established legal principles, the Tribunal overturned the Commissioner (A)'s decision and allowed the appellant's appeal. The judgment underscored the significance of legal clarity and adherence to established principles in resolving disputes related to CENVAT credit claims, ensuring fair treatment based on statutory provisions and judicial precedents.
|
