9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (12) TMI 1052 - AT - Service TaxDenial of CENVAT Credit - Manpower Agency service - services of transport of goods by transporters - period from April 2014 to August 2014 and September 2014 - reverse charge mechanism - HELD THAT - There was an issue with the availing of the CENVAT Credit in question, which requires to be ironed out after verifying the records; that there was also an issue as regards the verification of ST-3 returns for the subsequent period and not the one for the relevant period in dispute, from which the issue was flagged by the Audit Commissionerate and for the same, a speaking order is required, for which reason the matter has to be restored to the file of the Adjudicating Authority. The impugned order, to the extent it is appealed before this forum, is set aside and the matter is restored to the file of the Adjudicating Authority, who shall afford reasonable opportunity to the appellant and then pass a de novo order after verifying the relevant documents that may be furnished by the appellant, if so advised. The appellant shall cooperate with the Adjudicating Authority without seeking unnecessary adjournments. All the contentions in this regard are left open. Appeal allowed by way of remand.
Issues:
1. Denial of CENVAT Credit for Service Tax under reverse charge mechanism. Analysis: The appeal was filed against the Order-in-Appeal allowing the appeal in part and sustaining the demand in respect of another part. The main issue was whether the denial of CENVAT Credit, as appealed against, was correct in law. The appellant contested the denial of Service Tax credit for services of Manpower Agency and transport of goods by transporters. The period under dispute was from April 2014 to August 2014 and September 2014. The appellant argued that the Show Cause Notice was issued for a different period than the relevant one, and the Order-in-Original was passed by an officer who did not provide a hearing. Additionally, the appellant claimed a bona fide mistake in not availing CENVAT Credit before paying Service Tax and disputed the applicability of Notification No. 15/2017-ST to the case. The appellant also cited a relevant CESTAT order to support the argument that rules should be prospective. The Revenue supported the lower authorities' findings, citing the appellant's non-compliance with Rule 9(5) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The First Appellate Authority noted the lack of prescribed records for availing CENVAT Credit and the absence of evidence to establish credit availed within one year. There was a discrepancy regarding the availing of CENVAT Credit after paying Service Tax, which needed clarification by the Adjudicating Officer. The issue of adequate opportunity before passing the adjudication order was also raised. The Tribunal found issues with the availing of CENVAT Credit and the verification of ST-3 returns for the relevant period, necessitating a speaking order from the Adjudicating Authority. The impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the Adjudicating Authority for a fresh decision after verifying relevant documents and providing a reasonable opportunity to the appellant. Cooperation with the Adjudicating Authority was emphasized, and all contentions were left open. The appeal was allowed to the extent of remand, with the order pronounced in open court on 22.12.2022.
|
