2010 (2) TMI 132 - AT - Service Tax

Denial of cenvat credit - denial of Cenvat Credit to the appellants on the ground that Registration No. on the invoices has not been mentioned and it is also mentioned that in some of export of output service and invoice claimant s name is also not mentioned credit also denied on the ground that following services are not eligible as input services - (a) Transport charges, (b) Housekeeping charges, (c) Business Auxiliary Services, (d) Telecommunication services, (e) Management, maintenance or repair services, (f) Cafetaria and Food Subsidiary, (g) Chartered Accountant Services, (h) Security Services, (i) Courier Services, (j) Cleaning Services, (k) Lease Line charges, (l) Internet cost, (m) Guest House Expenses, (n) Cable services and (o) Prepaid Link Lead charges. Held that find it would be appropriate to remand back the case to the original adjudicating authority to examine the invoices with regard to the claim of the assessee has registration No., claimant s name, the use of the services and with regard to denial of the Cenvat credit that they are not entitle for Cenvat credit as per the Section 2(l) of the Cenvat credit Rules, the adjudicating authority shall consider the issue in respect of various judgements pronounced by this Tribunal and will pass a speaking order after giving an opportunity of hearing to the appellant to present their case.

Summary

Issues: Denial of Cenvat Credit due to missing information on invoices, eligibility of input services for Cenvat credit.

In this judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, MUMBAI, the appeal was made against the denial of Cenvat Credit to the appellants based on missing information on invoices and the eligibility of certain input services for Cenvat credit. The denial was primarily due to the absence of Registration No. on the invoices and the claimant's name not being mentioned in some export of output services. Additionally, certain input services like transport charges, housekeeping charges, business auxiliary services, and others were deemed not legible for Cenvat credit. The Chartered Accountant representing the appellant highlighted that discrepancies in some invoices had been rectified, and amended invoices were presented to support the refund claim. It was argued that the appellant was entitled to Cenvat credit on the merit of these input services.

Upon reviewing the rectified invoices provided by the Chartered Accountant, the Member (Judicial) found that these amended invoices were not submitted before the adjudicating authority. Consequently, the authority confirmed the demand and denied the Cenvat credit. The Member (Judicial) determined that a re-examination by the adjudicating authority was necessary. The case was remanded back to the original adjudicating authority for a thorough examination of the invoices concerning the presence of Registration No., claimant's name, the utilization of services, and the denial of Cenvat credit eligibility as per Section 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules. The adjudicating authority was instructed to consider relevant judgments pronounced by the Tribunal and provide a detailed order after allowing the appellant an opportunity to present their case.

The judgment concluded by stating that the matter was remanded back to the original adjudicating authority for a fresh adjudication, emphasizing the importance of a comprehensive review and adherence to the Cenvat Credit Rules. The decision was pronounced by Member (Judicial) Ashok Jindal, underscoring the need for a detailed examination and a fair opportunity for the appellant to present their arguments in the case.