9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (1) TMI 1186 - AT - Central ExciseCENVAT Credit - input services - Credit taken on the strength of debit notes - Imposition of equivalent penalty - Held that - Appellants have availed input service tax credit based on the debit notes for the input services received on professional fees, and internet tele- communication service amounting to ₹ 83,722/-. The appellants relied upon the decisions of the Tribunal in the cases of Jalaram Plastic Work (2012 (4) TMI 130 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD ) and Grasim Industries Ltd. (2011 (7) TMI 944 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI) wherein the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal and held that credit cannot be denied purely on the basis of debit notes. The decision of the Tribunal in the case of Friends & Friends Shipping Pvt. Ltd. (2013 (11) TMI 768 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD), as relied upon by the learned AR, is not applicable to the present case as in that case the issue related to eligibility of service tax paid by the CHA on behalf of the appellant for the service rendered by Kandla Port Trust and Kandla Dock Labour Board where the CHA issued the debit note. In the present case, the appellant availed the credit on the service tax paid on professional fee and internet telecommunication service. In view of the Tribunal's decision, as relied upon by the learned counsel, the appellants have made out a prima facie case for waiver of predeposit of entire dues. Accordingly, I grant waiver of predeposit of entire dues and stay its recovery during the pendency of the appeal - Stay granted.
Issues:
1. Disallowance of service tax credit based on debit notes. 2. Imposition of penalty and interest. 3. Applicability of Tribunal decisions. 4. Eligibility of availing CENVAT credit. Issue 1: Disallowance of service tax credit based on debit notes The appellants availed service tax credit of Rs. 83,722 based on debit notes raised, but the adjudicating authority disallowed the credit and imposed a penalty and interest. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the decision. The learned counsel argued that since the service receiver issued debit notes instead of invoices, they should still be eligible for the credit as they paid for the services and the debit notes contained all necessary details. The counsel relied on Tribunal decisions in similar cases to support their argument. Issue 2: Imposition of penalty and interest The penalty and interest were imposed by the adjudicating authority in addition to disallowing the service tax credit. The penalty was equivalent to the disallowed credit amount. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision. However, the appellants sought a waiver of predeposit of entire dues and a stay on recovery during the appeal process. Issue 3: Applicability of Tribunal decisions The Tribunal analyzed previous decisions in similar cases, such as CCE, Jalaram Plastic Pack and CCE Vs. Grasim Industries Ltd., where the Tribunal dismissed Revenue's appeal and held that credit cannot be denied solely based on debit notes. The Tribunal distinguished a case involving a CHA issuing a debit note for service tax paid on behalf of the appellant from the present case where the appellants availed credit on professional fees and internet telecommunication service. The Tribunal found that the decisions cited by the Revenue were not directly applicable to the current situation. Issue 4: Eligibility of availing CENVAT credit After considering arguments from both sides and reviewing the records, the Tribunal found that the appellants had availed input service tax credit based on debit notes for input services received. Relying on Tribunal decisions, the Tribunal granted a waiver of predeposit of entire dues and stayed the recovery during the appeal process, as the appellants had made a prima facie case for the waiver based on the Tribunal's previous decisions. In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, granting a waiver of predeposit of entire dues and staying the recovery during the appeal process. The decision was based on the appellants' eligibility to avail service tax credit despite using debit notes, supported by relevant Tribunal decisions and the distinction of the current case from previous cases cited by the Revenue.
|
