2012 (7) TMI 348 - AT - Service Tax

Cenvat credit of service tax paid on various services has been denied on the ground that the invoices did not contain service tax registration number of the service provider and in some other cases, the name and address of the recipient was not mentioned correctly Held that - appellants have also undertaken to get certificates from the service providers and stated that input service for inputs have been received and utilised. Two invoices which would be produced are required to be verified and the provision of Rule 9 have to be applied to see whether omission are condonable. requirement of pre-deposit of balance amounts is waived. Matter is remanded to original adjudicating authority

Summary

Issues:
Denial of cenvat credit for service tax paid on various services due to missing information on invoices, excess availment of credit, and absence of invoices.

Analysis:
The appellant was not present during the hearing, but written submissions were filed requesting consideration of the stay application based on the submissions. The learned AR was heard, and the written submissions along with the case record were considered. The denial of cenvat credit was based on various grounds, including missing service tax registration numbers on invoices and incorrect recipient information. Additionally, there were cases of excess credit availed and credit taken without invoices. The appellant submitted that excess amounts had been paid with interest and provided copies of missing invoices, assuring their production before the original adjudicating authority. The balance of cenvat credit was defended by stating that defects were rectified, making the credit valid.

The judge referred to Rule 9 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, noting that the recipient's name and address were not mandatory requirements and could be condoned. The appellants committed to obtaining certificates from service providers and confirmed the receipt and utilization of input services. The judge emphasized the need to verify the two missing invoices and apply Rule 9 to determine if the omissions were condonable. It was decided to remand the matter to the original adjudicating authority at this stage for verification. The requirement for pre-deposit of balance amounts was waived, the stay petition was granted, and the issue was to be reconsidered by the original adjudicating authority with a chance for the appellants to present their case adequately.