2023 (3) TMI 640 - AT - Service Tax

CENVAT Credit - input services - contravention of Rule 4A(2) of Service Tax Rules, 1994 read with Rue 9 (1) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 - it is alleged that the Zonal offices were neither registered as input service distributors nor did the assessee receive the original invoice/bill from the Zonal offices - HELD THAT - The Ld. Adjudicating authority had categorically found that the Respondents have obtained Central Excise Registration and is a Input Service Distributor. In that circumstances, there are no infirmity in the impugned order. Therefore the same is upheld. The Appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.

Summary

Issues involved:
The issue involved in this case is whether the Respondent was entitled to take CENVAT Credit of the input services in contravention of Rule 4A(2) of Service Tax Rules, 1994 read with Rule 9(1) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.

Comprehensive Details:

Issue 1: Entitlement to CENVAT Credit
The Respondent, a banking company providing services under 'Banking and Financial Services', was alleged to have irregularly availed CENVAT Credit during April 2005 to March 2008. The Revenue contended that the Respondent contravened various rules. However, the Ld. Adjudicating authority dropped the Show Cause Notice against the Respondent after considering their reply. The Revenue appealed against this decision.

Issue 2: Interpretation of Input Service Distributor
The Ld. Adjudicating authority observed that the Respondent, a nationalized bank, had centralized registration and acted as an Input Service Distributor. The authority noted that the Respondent's procedure for availing CENVAT Credit was legitimate, as the various branches collected details of input services and consolidated them for tax payment. The authority emphasized that there was no irregularity in availing CENVAT Credit and no need for registration as an Input Service Distributor.

Issue 3: Penalty Imposition
The impugned Show Cause Notice proposed a penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. However, the authority found that the case did not fall under the conditions warranting penalty under Section 78. Instead, the authority suggested invoking Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994 due to the circumstances of the case.

Judgment:
The Appellate Tribunal upheld the decision of the Ld. Adjudicating authority, stating that the Respondent had validly availed CENVAT Credit as an Input Service Distributor. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, finding no infirmity in the impugned order. Consequently, the Appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed, and the Respondent was exonerated of all charges.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal's decision affirmed the Respondent's entitlement to CENVAT Credit as an Input Service Distributor, emphasizing the legitimate procedure followed by the nationalized bank. The judgment highlighted the importance of compliance with statutory provisions and the absence of irregularities in availing CENVAT Credit.