2014 (12) TMI 592 - AT - Service Tax

Wrong availment of CENVAT credit - Imposition of penalty - In the invoices, the addresses of the service providers were not mentioned - appellants failed to produce relevant invoices in respect of credit taken - Held that - Issue arose somewhere in the year 2008-09 and thereafter the appellants took steps to rectify and therefore there is no demand for the subsequent period. The show-cause notice was issued in 2010 and now it is more than 5 years since the issue was opened, yet the appellants have not taken any steps to cure the defect for the past period. Even before the commissioner, no details of invoices where such defects have been rectified were produced and today also, the learned counsel fairly agrees that appellants are still making efforts. Even though assessee relied upon several decisions to submit that it was held in those decisions that the service providers address need not be there, on going through the decisions cited, we find that in none of the cases, the invoices in which service provider s address was not there was the subject matter of dispute. Therefore, there is no precedent decision supporting the view taken by the learned counsel. As regards admissibility of credit on invoices wherein the address of service provider is non-existent, we are not in a position to hold that appellant has made out a prima facie case for waiver - stay granted partly.

Summary

Issues:
1. Wrong availment of CENVAT credit
2. Demand arising from invoices not in the name of appellant
3. Denial of CENVAT credit due to lack of relevant invoices
4. Demand in relation to unregistered service provider

Analysis:

Issue 1: Wrong availment of CENVAT credit
The appellant availed CENVAT credit wrongly, leading to a demand of Rs. 3,28,51,708/- with interest and penalty under CENVAT Credit Rules 2004 for the period 2005-06 to 2008-09. The demand was based on missing essential details in invoices, such as service provider addresses. Despite attempts to rectify the issue, the appellant failed to provide evidence of rectification, leading to a lack of a prima facie case for waiver. The Tribunal found no precedent supporting the appellant's argument regarding the necessity of service provider addresses on invoices, ultimately requiring a deposit of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- for further adjudication.

Issue 2: Demand arising from invoices not in the name of appellant
A demand of Rs. 1,88,61,621/- arose due to invoices being in the name of the appellant's branch offices instead of the appellant itself. The appellant presented proof that other branches/officers did not claim credit, suggesting a need for further consideration. The matter was proposed for remand to evaluate the certificates issued by other branches and the admissibility of credit, with no objection from the Respondent.

Issue 3: Denial of CENVAT credit due to lack of relevant invoices
CENVAT credit of Rs. 21,27,676/- was denied as the appellant failed to produce necessary invoices at the time of assessment. The appellant expressed readiness to provide the documents if given an opportunity, leading to a proposal for remand to verify the documents, which was agreed upon by the Respondent.

Issue 4: Demand in relation to unregistered service provider
An amount of Rs. 1,72,710/- was demanded concerning invoices from an unregistered service provider, M/s. Mega Satellite Services. The appellant claimed to have applied for registration, and the Tribunal highlighted the need to verify whether the tax was paid, emphasizing that an application for registration could suffice. This aspect was also recommended for reconsideration.

In conclusion, the Tribunal decided to remand the matter for further examination of the issues and verification of documents. The appellant was directed to deposit Rs. 1,50,00,000/- within eight weeks to proceed with the adjudication process, ensuring compliance and adherence to principles of natural justice.