2009 (12) TMI 185 - AT - Service Tax

Cenvat Credit- the adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of Rs. 2, 92, 47, 275 after allowing the Cenvat credit on service tax paid on telephone services courier services and AMC services. It is the submission that the adjudicating authority has failed to consider the evidence which had been produced by the appellant before him as regards the service tax paid which are categorized as other charges . He drew our attention to various evidence produced before the adjudicating authority. It is the submission that as regards reversal of service tax of Rs. 9.83 crores they have paid interest also. They are not challenging the same. Held that- In view of this we set aside the impugned order to the extent it confirms the reversal of Cenvat credit of Rs. 2.92 crores and allow the appeal by way of remand to the adjudicating authority for a fresh decision after appreciating the evidence placed before him during the de novo proceedings. The appellant shall be given an opportunity of personal hearing. The stay application and the appeal are disposed of by way of remand.

Summary

The Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT, Bangalore) addressed a stay petition concerning the waiver of pre-deposit of service tax amounting to Rs. 2,92,47,275, interest, and penalty under sections 76, 77, and rule 15 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The core issue was the appellant's eligibility for Cenvat credit on service tax paid for services received at regional offices across India.The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand after allowing credit on certain services but denied credit on amounts categorized as "other charges," citing lack of detailed breakup and explanation from the appellant. The appellant contended that evidence supporting the payment of service tax on these charges had been submitted but ignored by the adjudicating authority. The respondent argued that such evidence was not presented earlier.The Tribunal found that the denial of Cenvat credit was solely due to the absence of a breakup of "other charges," and the adjudicating authority failed to consider the evidence properly. Accordingly, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order confirming reversal of Cenvat credit of Rs. 2.92 crores and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication, directing the authority to appreciate the evidence and provide the appellant an opportunity for personal hearing. The stay petition and appeal were disposed of by way of remand.