2022 (6) TMI 1041 - AT - Service Tax

CENVAT Credit - no documentary evidence were available with the appellant as was required under Rule 9(1) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - HELD THAT - In view of the submissions and perusing the record, it is observed that the Original Adjudicating Authority has confirmed the entire demand / reversal of Cenvat Credit of Rs.18,09,098/- for the sole reason that the appellant has failed to produce any documentary evidence by which it can be established that the service have been received before 1.7.2017. Commissioner (Appeals) also while confirming the demand of Rs. 5,26,497/- has held the non-availability of the requisite documents as the reason for the same. However, keeping in view that the documents are impressed upon to have been annexed on record and to have been provided to both the Original Adjudicating Authorities. The typographic error in challan number and correlation of the compiled record of the appellant is impressed upon by the learned Counsel. Keeping in view the same, the request of remanding the matter is hereby accepted. The matter is remanded back to the Commissioner (Appeals) to appreciate both the challans and to look into the documents produced by the appellant and to appreciate as to whether there is any typographic error - Appeal is allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
1. Availment of Cenvat Credit without proper documentary evidence.
2. Confirmation of partial demand due to non-availability of requisite documents.
3. Typographic error in challan numbers and discrepancy in records.
4. Request for remand for proper appreciation of documents and calculation.

Analysis:
1. The appellant provided taxable services but availed Cenvat Credit without sufficient documentary evidence, leading to a show cause notice proposing reversal of credit. The initial order confirmed the reversal for a significant amount due to lack of evidence, which was partially allowed in appeal based on a CBEC Circular. However, a demand of Rs. 5,26,497 was still upheld due to non-availability of specific documents like challan numbers.

2. The appeal was filed challenging the confirmation of the partial demand. The appellant's counsel argued that all required documents were submitted, highlighting discrepancies in the challan numbers mentioned in the audit report and show cause notice. The counsel emphasized that the challans were indeed provided and the credit availed was proportionate. The Adjudicating Authority was criticized for not acknowledging the typographic error in the notice and failing to adjust the amounts in the Service Tax register to match the challans.

3. The Departmental Representative mentioned that the Commissioner (Appeals) had considered the CBEC Circular and examined the documents, leading to the confirmation of the partial demand. However, they did not oppose remanding the matter for further review. The Tribunal observed that the demand was confirmed primarily due to the lack of documentary evidence establishing service receipt before a specific date. The discrepancy in challan numbers and the appellant's record compilation were noted, leading to the decision to remand the case back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a fresh decision based on a proper assessment of the documents and records provided.

4. Ultimately, the Tribunal allowed the appeal by remanding the case for a thorough review, emphasizing the importance of accurately assessing the documents and avoiding any influence from previous findings. The decision highlighted the need for a fair and meticulous evaluation of the evidence presented before reaching a final conclusion.