2012 (7) TMI 574 - AT - Service Tax

CENVAT Credit of Service Tax paid on the Banking and financial services receive from City Bank has been denied on the ground that the invoices were issued in the name of another unit of the same company and not in the name of the appellant Held that - If another opportunity is given, they will submit the relevant details and also their books of accounts and satisfy the adjudicating authority that the services have actually been received by the appellant and not by the 100% EOU and the bills received by them cover the services provided - order is set aside and the matter is remanded to original adjudicating authority

Summary

Issues:
Denial of CENVAT Credit for Service Tax paid on banking and financial services due to incorrect invoicing.

Analysis:
The judgment revolves around the denial of CENVAT Credit for Service Tax paid on banking and financial services received from City Bank. The issue arose because the invoices were issued in the name of another unit of the same company, not in the name of the appellant. The tribunal found that the matter needed to be remanded due to observations made by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the fact that all documents were not properly recorded by the original adjudicating authority. The requirement of pre-deposit was waived, and the appeal was taken up for disposal.

The appellant argued that the invoice was incorrectly issued in the name of a different unit, 100% EOU, while the services were actually provided to the appellant. The City Bank later acknowledged the mistake in the invoice and certified that the services were indeed rendered to the appellant. Despite submitting documents to the original adjudicating authority, discrepancies in dates between bills and certificates led the Commissioner (Appeals) to question the correlation between them, hindering the consideration of the appellant's submissions.

Upon reviewing the submissions and records, the tribunal noted that certificates from City Bank confirmed the services were provided to the appellant without dispute. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) highlighted discrepancies in dates and lack of correlation between documents, preventing a thorough assessment. The appellant expressed willingness to provide additional details, including their books of accounts, to demonstrate that the services were received by the appellant and not the 100% EOU. As a result, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the original adjudicating authority for a fresh decision, allowing the appellant a reasonable opportunity to present their case effectively.