2015 (10) TMI 1739 - AT - Service Tax

Cenvat Credit - Distribution of input services / ISD The department was of the view that appellant having various other branches and advertisement services being common to all units the credit has to be availed on proportionate basis. - Held That - Rule 7 does not speak of distributing credit on proportionate basis; thus credit rightly availed - the appellant failed to take ISD registration it would amount only to a procedural lapse for which the benefit of credit cannot be denied. It is clear that the credit was rightly availed by the appellant - Decided in favor of assessee. Levy of penalty u/s 77 for failure to comply with the audit objections - Allegation that appellant did not furnish requisite information and documents, and did not respond to the letters. - Held that - Department itself is not sure whether the appellant is guilty of failure to furnish information or failure to produce documents thus imposition of penalty cannot be imposed on flimsy and shaky evidence Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Alleged wrongful availment of CENVAT Credit on advertisement services.
2. Imposition of penalty under Section 77(1)(c) of the Finance Act, 1994 for failure to furnish information/documents.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Alleged wrongful availment of CENVAT Credit on advertisement services:
The appellant, an authorized dealer engaged in sale and service of vehicles, availed full credit on advertisement services, which was later found to be in violation of proportionate basis credit distribution. The department alleged wrongful availment and imposed penalties. The appellant argued that Rule 7 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 did not mandate proportionate basis credit distribution during the disputed period. The appellant's failure to obtain Input Service Distributor registration was deemed a procedural lapse, not warranting credit denial. The Tribunal held that the credit availed was legitimate, overturning the demand for service tax, interest, and penalties.

Issue 2: Imposition of penalty under Section 77(1)(c) of the Finance Act, 1994:
Apart from the credit availed issue, penalties were imposed under Section 77(1)(c) for failure to furnish information/documents. The department alleged non-compliance with audit objections and failure to respond to letters and summons. The appellant contended that they adequately responded to queries through letters and were under the belief that sufficient information had been provided. The Tribunal noted discrepancies in the imposition of penalties, with the department unclear on the specific failure (information or document submission). Citing Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994, which allows penalty waiver for reasonable cause, the Tribunal found the penalties unjustified due to the appellant's reasonable belief in providing necessary information.

In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant on both issues, setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal with any consequential reliefs. The judgment highlighted the importance of procedural compliance and reasonable cause in penalty imposition under the Finance Act, 1994.

This detailed analysis covers the key legal aspects and arguments presented in the judgment, providing a comprehensive understanding of the issues involved and the Tribunal's decision.