9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (9) TMI 658 - AT - Service TaxCENVAT Credit - input service - architect service - office renovation service - credit also denied for the reason that PAN based service tax number was not available on the invoices of input services - denial of credit also on account of nexus - HELD THAT - The appellant was entitled to avail Cenvat credit of service tax paid for repair and renovation of office as provided through a clarification in circular issued by CBEC bearing No. 943/04/2011 dated 29.04.2011 and also as held by this Tribunal through precedent decision in the case of M/S ASRANI INNS RESORTS PVT. LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICE TAX NAVI MUMBAI 2023 (4) TMI 606 - CESTAT MUMBAI . Tribunal in the case of COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, C.E. S.T., NOIDA VERSUS M/S PANGEA-3 LEGAL DATA BASE SYSTEM PVT. LTD. 2018 (4) TMI 110 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD held that when the invoices are issued after performance of service, the service receiver cannot be held responsible for non-mentioning of PAN based service tax number on invoices. Other CENVAT Credit are denied - appeal allowed.
Issues involved:
The denial of Cenvat credit to the appellant on architect service, office renovation service, and PAN based service tax number, penalties under Sections 77 and 78 of Finance Act, 1994 imposed on the appellant. Architect service and office renovation service: The lower level proceedings resulted in the denial of Cenvat credit to the appellant for architect service and office renovation service. The denial was on the grounds that they did not satisfy the definition of input service. The appellant argued that they were entitled to avail Cenvat credit for the service tax paid for the repair and renovation of the office as per a circular issued by CBEC and a precedent decision by the Tribunal. The Tribunal agreed with the appellant's arguments and held that the appellant was entitled to the Cenvat credit of Rs.10,93,877 involved in this case. PAN based service tax number: Cenvat credit of Rs.1,03,906 was denied to the appellant because the PAN based service tax number was not available on the invoices of input services. The appellant contended that when invoices are issued after the performance of service, the service receiver cannot be held responsible for the non-mentioning of the PAN based service tax number on the invoices. The Tribunal found the appellant's contention admissible and sustained in view of the circular and relied upon case laws. Penalties under Sections 77 and 78 of Finance Act, 1994: Penalties under Sections 77 and 78 of Finance Act, 1994 were imposed on the appellant along with the denial of Cenvat credit. The Revenue argued that the impugned order-in-appeal, through which the Cenvat credit was denied and penalties were imposed, was reasonable. However, the appellant's Chartered Accountant argued that the appellant was entitled to the Cenvat credit based on relevant circulars and precedent decisions of the Tribunal. The Tribunal agreed with the appellant's arguments and set aside that part of the impugned order denying the Cenvat credit, thereby allowing the appeal. Conclusion: The Tribunal, after considering the submissions and relevant circulars and case laws, held in favor of the appellant, allowing the appeal and granting the Cenvat credit of Rs.10,93,877 involved in the case.
|
