2014 (7) TMI 366 - AT - Service Tax

CENVAT credit - insurance auxiliary service, outdoor catering service, management, maintenance or repair service, clearing & forwarding agent s service and business support services - Invalid document - registration number and details of recipients/provider are not available - Held that - regarding invalid document, lower authorities should consider whether the omissions/commissions in the documents can be condoned by invoking the provisions of Rule 9 which empowers the Assistant Commissioners to condone the omission of certain items in the invoices. Denial of credit of difference of figures shown in the letter written to department and figure shown in ST-3 return - held that - if Commissioner has doubts, the accounts can be brought and proper verification can be done to ensure that the credit has been taken in accordance with law and the figures submitted in the ST-3 returns are correct. Just because there is difference between the two figures, in our opinion, it may not be proper to deny the credit - Matter remanded back - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Disallowance of CENVAT credit on various services.
2. Disallowance of credit due to invalid documents.
3. Discrepancy in the amount of CENVAT credit claimed.
4. Disallowance of credit related to event management service.

Analysis:

1. The judgment addresses the disallowance of CENVAT credit on different services like insurance auxiliary service, outdoor catering service, management, maintenance or repair service, clearing & forwarding agent's service, and business support services. The appellant argued that for subsequent periods, the Department itself allowed such credits, and refunds were granted for services utilized for exported output services. The Tribunal suggested that the Department reconsiders these services based on its own decisions for subsequent periods. Specific considerations were mentioned for insurance auxiliary service and outdoor catering service, emphasizing the need for verification regarding coverage and collection of amounts. The matter was proposed for remand to lower authorities for fresh adjudication.

2. Another issue involved the disallowance of CENVAT credit amounting to Rs. 7,30,980 due to invalid documents lacking recipient/provider details. The appellant suggested invoking Rule 9 to condone document discrepancies. The Tribunal decided not to conclude on this issue as the matter was being remanded for further consideration by the lower authorities.

3. The judgment also dealt with a discrepancy in the claimed CENVAT credit amount of Rs. 12,21,688. The disallowance was based on a letter from the appellant stating a lower credit amount than what was shown in the ST-3 returns. The Tribunal opined that denying credit solely based on this discrepancy was not a proper application of law. It recommended a thorough verification of accounts to ensure compliance with the law and correct figures in the returns. The issue was to be reconsidered afresh by the lower authorities.

4. Lastly, an amount of Rs. 1,09,035 related to event management service was discussed. The appellant argued for the admissibility of this credit based on subsequent decisions. The Tribunal left it to the appellant to present these decisions before the lower authorities for consideration post remand. Ultimately, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication, allowing the appellants a fair opportunity to present their case based on the Tribunal's observations.