2015 (1) TMI 906 - AT - Service Tax

CENVAT Credit - abatement under Notification No.1/2006-ST dt. 01/03/2006 - Held that - Appellants have not produced any evidence to substantiate this claim. We take note of the fact that in this case the appellant is claiming abatement as per the exemption notification and burden to show the eligibility to exemption is on the assessee and prima facie other than stating that they have not taken CENVAT credit at all on the input services attributable to tour operator service the appellants have not shown any documentary or other evidence to support the claim. At this stage learned counsel submits that appellants may be given another opportunity to submit such evidence/documents. Having regard to the facts and circumstances discussed above we consider this request is reasonable. Accordingly the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the original adjudicating authority for fresh adjudication - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Interpretation of eligibility for abatement under Notification No.1/2006-ST due to availing CENVAT credit on input services.

Analysis:
The judgment revolves around the issue of the appellants' eligibility for abatement under Notification No.1/2006-ST due to their alleged availing of CENVAT credit on input services. The appellants argued that they do not provide tour operator services except at their Delhi Branch, where they offer Business Auxiliary Service (BAS) by outsourcing to a tour operator when needed. They contended that they have been paying service tax after availing abatement to avoid litigation. The Revenue claimed that the appellants had availed CENVAT credit, which the appellants disputed, citing the annexure to the show-cause notice based on their data, showing no CENVAT credit availed. The Tribunal noted that the annexure included various services like courier, legal, and professional services, indicating common services taken at the head office. The appellants asserted not taking credit for services related to tour operator service, but lacked evidence to support this claim. The Tribunal emphasized the burden on the assessee to prove exemption eligibility, leading to remanding the matter for fresh adjudication to provide the appellants another chance to present evidence substantiating their claim.

The Tribunal highlighted the importance of evidence and documentation in establishing eligibility for exemption, especially when claiming abatement under a notification. It underscored the need for the appellants to substantiate their assertion of not availing CENVAT credit on services linked to tour operator service. The Tribunal's decision to remand the case for fresh adjudication signifies the significance of a thorough examination of evidence and providing the appellant with a fair opportunity to present their case. The judgment emphasizes the procedural fairness and the requirement for the original adjudicating authority to afford reasonable opportunities to the appellant to avoid any delays in the process. The Tribunal's neutral stance on the issues and the directive for full cooperation from the appellants underscore the importance of a transparent and comprehensive adjudicative process in tax matters.