2014 (3) TMI 77 - AT - Service Tax

Waiver of pre deposit - Business Auxiliary Service - Availment of CENVAT Credit - Held that - There is no dispute that since the year 2005 the appellant company is operating from Noida and in this regard they had obtained permission from the Company Law Board permitting the change of the name and registered head office. Ongoing though the facts narrated in the impugned order, it is seen that receipt of the service, in question, is not disputed. It is also not disputed that the service of renting of immovable property received by them is in respect of immovable property rented by them in Noida. The only ground on which the Cenvat Credit is sought to be denied is that the invoices of the service provider mention the old name and address and old registration number of the Appellant company and in some cases, while the new name of the Appellant Company -M/s. Drishtee Development and Communication Limited, their address in Noida is not their present address. Since the receipt of the service is not disputed, the impugned order, does not appear to be correct - Stay granted.

Issues:
1. Disallowance of Cenvat Credit due to discrepancies in the invoices mentioning the old name and address of the appellant company.
2. Validity of Cenvat Credit based on service provider's invoices.
3. Change of name and address of the appellant company with permission from the Company Law Board.
4. Dispute regarding the receipt of taxable services during the period of dispute.

Analysis:
1. The appellant, engaged in providing taxable services, faced disallowance of Cenvat Credit amounting to Rs. 28,450 by the Department due to discrepancies in the invoices. The invoices mentioned the old name and address of the appellant company, which led to the denial of Cenvat Credit. The Assistant Commissioner's decision disallowing the credit was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals).

2. The appellant argued that despite the discrepancies in the invoices, the receipt of taxable services during the disputed period was not in question. The appellant had shifted to Noida in 2005, changed its name, and obtained permission for the same from the Company Law Board. The appellant contended that the denial of Cenvat Credit solely based on the old name and address mentioned in the invoices was unjustified. The appellant sought a waiver of the pre-deposit of Cenvat Credit demand, interest, and penalty for the appeal hearing.

3. The Department opposed the appellant's plea, emphasizing that the invoices containing the old name and address of the appellant company were invalid documents for claiming Cenvat Credit. The Department highlighted the change in the appellant's PAN number, leading to the issuance of a new Registration number, as a reason for denying the credit based on the old invoices.

4. Upon reviewing the submissions and records, the Tribunal acknowledged that the appellant had been operating from Noida since 2005 with a change in name and registered head office approved by the Company Law Board. The Tribunal noted that the receipt of the services in question was undisputed, and the renting of immovable property was related to Noida. The Tribunal found the denial of Cenvat Credit solely based on discrepancies in the invoices, mentioning the old name and address, to be unjustified. Consequently, the Tribunal waived the pre-deposit requirement for the Cenvat Credit demand, interest, and penalty, allowing the appeal and staying the recovery.

This detailed analysis of the legal judgment outlines the issues involved, the arguments presented by both parties, and the Tribunal's decision based on the facts and legal considerations presented during the proceedings.

← Previous Next →