2020 (1) TMI 805 - AT - Service Tax

CENVAT Credit - capital goods - motor vehicle - General Insurance Service on cash vans - HELD THAT - The definition of capital goods covers motor vehicles other than those inter alia used for providing output service and Sub-clause (B) requires registration in the name of the provider of output service. Hence, when the assessee is trying to make out a case that the cash vans in question are its capital goods, then it has to necessarily prove that the same are registered in its name and that the same were registered in its name during the length of the period of dispute involved. Otherwise, the appellant would not satisfy that the same is capital goods and hence, will be covered under the exclusion clause to Rule 2 (l) ibid. Further, there is a clear finding by the lower authorities that the appellant did not produce any documentary evidence in its support to prove that the motor vehicle is registered in its name and hence, the lower authorities did not have the benefit of the registration certificate furnished for the first time before this forum - Further, the period of dispute is from April 2013 to September 2015 and October 2015 to June 2017 whereas the photocopy of registration certificate reflects the date of registration as 25.11.2014. Mere filing of photocopy of registration certificate before this forum, that too for the first time, would not help anyone since it has to be established that those very vehicles were in fact used and for this, the Tribunal cannot go into this aspect - In view of this, photocopy of the registration certificate cannot be accepted since its relevance has neither been explained nor established and therefore, the case of the appellant falls back to the position where there is a categorical finding of the Adjudicating Authority as to non-furnishing of supporting documentary proof. The appellant has not been able to discharge the burden as to registration in its name and hence, there are no merit in the contentions of the assessee. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Availability of input credit of Service Tax paid on General Insurance Service on cash vans.

Analysis:
The only issue in this appeal pertains to the availability of input credit of Service Tax paid on General Insurance Service on cash vans. The appellant argued that the insurance on cash vans was essential for securing cash transportation, as per RBI guidelines, and that the vans were capital goods under CENVAT Credit Rules. The appellant contended that the exclusion clause under Rule 2(l) regarding General Insurance should not apply as they were providing output service. On the contrary, the Revenue contended that the input credit was denied due to irregular availment of CENVAT Credit and that General Insurance fell under the exclusion clause. The Revenue highlighted the requirement for motor vehicles to be registered in the name of the service provider as per the definition of capital goods. The Adjudicating Authority found that the appellant failed to submit supporting documents, leading to the denial of input credit.

During the hearing, the appellant relied on a decision of the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal and submitted photocopies of registration certificates for the cash vans in question. However, the Tribunal noted that the definition of capital goods requires registration in the name of the service provider, which the appellant failed to prove. The Tribunal emphasized that the appellant did not produce any documentary evidence to support the registration of the vehicles in its name during the disputed period. The registration certificates submitted were dated after the disputed period, further weakening the appellant's case.

The Tribunal rejected the relevance of the photocopies of registration certificates filed for the first time during the appeal, as the vehicles' actual use was not established. The Tribunal emphasized that no registration certificate was provided to the Revenue authorities earlier, and the significance of the photocopies was not explained. The Tribunal concluded that the appellant failed to discharge the burden of proving registration in its name, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. Additionally, the Tribunal clarified that the case law cited by the appellant was not applicable to the current case under Service Tax, as it pertained to classification issues under the Central Excise Act.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the impugned order, stating that the appellant did not demonstrate merit in their contentions regarding the availability of input credit. The Tribunal emphasized the necessity for registration of motor vehicles in the name of the service provider for claiming input credit and found that the appellant failed to meet this requirement. The judgment was pronounced on 08.01.2020.