2020 (2) TMI 292 - AT - Service Tax

Photography services - exemption towards value of goods - Benefit of N/N. 12/2003-ST dated 20.06.2003 - allegation is that invoices raised did not specifically indicate the value of the goods and materials sold by the assessee - HELD THAT - The Adjudicating Authority has categorically found that the invoices furnished by the appellant were not sufficient enough to conclusively establish the value of the goods and materials and hence it was all the more relevant for the assessee to furnish the necessary documentary proof. Therefore, going by the judicial discipline it has to be examined whether the assessee-appellant has successfully discharged the primary burden, with the support of documentary proof. The appellant has also contended as to its eligibility to Cenvat Credit if service tax was demanded without extending the benefit of Notification No. 12/2003, but however, a perusal of the impugned orders does not reveal any such contentions urged by the appellant and therefore we deem it proper in the interest of justice to remit this issue of verifying the eligibility or otherwise of the appellant to the Cenvat Credit in question, to the file of the adjudicating authority who shall call for such documents as may be necessary in this regard. Appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Eligibility of the appellant to the benefit of Notification No. 12/2003-ST dated 20.06.2003 and verification of eligibility for Cenvat Credit.

Analysis:

1. Eligibility of the Appellant to the Benefit of Notification No. 12/2003:
The case revolved around whether the appellant was eligible for the benefit of Notification No. 12/2003-ST dated 20.06.2003. The notification exempted the value of goods and materials sold by the service provider to the recipient of service from service tax, subject to specific conditions. The dispute arose when the Revenue contended that the appellant did not satisfy the primary requirement of the notification as the invoices did not indicate the value of goods and materials sold. The Order-in-Original upheld this view, leading to the appeal. The Tribunal examined the documentary proof provided by the appellant and found it insufficient to establish the value of goods and materials conclusively. The Tribunal referred to a decision of the Delhi Tribunal's Larger Bench, emphasizing the need for specific documentary proof to extend the benefit of the notification. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant was not entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 12/2003.

2. Verification of Eligibility for Cenvat Credit:
The appellant also raised the issue of eligibility for Cenvat Credit if service tax was demanded without extending the benefit of Notification No. 12/2003. However, the Tribunal noted that the impugned orders did not address this contention. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to remit this issue to the adjudicating authority for further verification. The authority was instructed to call for necessary documents to determine the appellant's eligibility for Cenvat Credit on the capital goods claimed. The Tribunal clarified that the remand was limited to ascertaining the eligibility for Cenvat Credit, and a fresh order was to be passed accordingly.

In conclusion, the Tribunal partly dismissed the appeal regarding the benefit of Notification No. 12/2003 and partly remanded the issue of Cenvat Credit eligibility for further examination. The decision highlighted the importance of providing specific documentary proof to claim exemptions and credits under the relevant laws.