2019 (4) TMI 909 - AT - Service Tax

CENVAT Credit - input services - signages - civil construction and other services - principles of natural justice - Held that - The impugned order has not considered all the submissions made by the appellant with regard to various input services. Further the decisions relied upon by the appellant in support of his submission have also not been properly appreciated by the Commissioner (Appeals). The input service with regard to Civil Construction relates to the period prior to April 2011 but the Commissioner (Appeals) in the absence of sufficient evidence has considered the said service availed after the amendment w.e.f. April 2011 - the appellant in order to support his claim that the said services were prior to the amendment in April 2011 has produced the certificate from the service provider which was not there before the Commissioner (Appeals). The impugned order needs to be set aside and the matter needs to be remanded back to the original authority with a direction to pass a De novo order after considering all the evidence which may be produced by the appellant in support of their submission - Appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
1. Credit availed on various input services
2. Commissioner (Appeals) modification of Order-in-Original
3. Applicability of cenvat credit on Civil Construction
4. Admissibility of credit on other input services

Analysis:

1. The appeal was against an order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) confirming the Order-in-Original but allowing credit on storage racks and reducing penalty. The appellant, engaged in maintenance and repair services, was alleged to have irregularly availed credit on input services. The demand was for reversal of a specific amount along with interest and penalty. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand, leading to the appeal.

2. The consultant for the appellant argued that the impugned order did not properly consider the facts and law. He contended that credit on signages was justified as they were used for advertising taxable services. The consultant cited relevant case laws to support the argument. Regarding cenvat credit on Civil Construction, it was argued that services were received before April 2011, supported by a certificate, and were used for repair and renovation, falling under the definition of 'input service.' The consultant referenced a Board Circular and case laws to strengthen the argument for admissibility of credit on other input services.

3. The learned AR defended the impugned order, leading to a consideration of submissions from both parties and a review of the material on record. The Tribunal found that the impugned order did not adequately address the appellant's submissions on various input services. It was noted that the input service related to Civil Construction was pre-April 2011, but the Commissioner (Appeals) considered it post-amendment due to insufficient evidence. The Tribunal acknowledged the certificate provided by the appellant, not previously available before the Commissioner (Appeals), indicating the need for a fresh assessment.

4. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the case to the original authority for a de novo order, emphasizing the importance of considering all evidence presented by the appellant. The decision was made in favor of the appellant by way of remand, ensuring compliance with the principles of natural justice. The operative portion of the Order was pronounced in Open Court on 11/04/2019.