2015 (12) TMI 150 - AT - Service Tax

Cenvat Credit - invoices did not give description of the services provided by said M/s. Shree Services & Trading Company Ltd., and the registration number has not been mentioned on the invoice. - Held that - Revenue is not denying the fact of payment of Service Tax by the service provider and the fact of availment of service by the service recipient, i.e., the appellant. The appellants have also produced the service registration number on record. Further as per the appellant, the details of input service were not being provided by the service provider inasmuch as they were providing all sort of services to the appellant under a contract which fall in the category of Business Auxiliary Services, on which services the service provider was paying the Service Tax. As such, I fully agree with the appellants that the fact of invoices raised by the service provider not giving full details, cannot be made a ground for denial of substantial benefit of credit of Service Tax to the appellants, especially when there is no dispute about the availability of the same. As such, I set aside the impugned order - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Availment of credit based on incomplete invoices.
2. Denial of credit due to lack of description and registration number on invoices.
3. Dispute over payment of Service Tax by the service provider.
4. Applicability of Business Auxiliary Services category.
5. Confirmation of demands and imposition of penalties.

Issue 1: Availment of credit based on incomplete invoices
The appellants availed various services from a service provider but faced objections from the Revenue regarding the credit claimed based on invoices lacking service descriptions and registration numbers. The appellants argued that the service provider, despite not providing detailed descriptions on invoices, had paid the Service Tax under the Business Auxiliary Services category, and the appellants had received the services. The lower authorities confirmed the demands and imposed penalties, leading to the dispute.

Issue 2: Denial of credit due to lack of description and registration number on invoices
The crux of the matter was the denial of credit by the Revenue due to incomplete invoices issued by the service provider. The appellants contended that despite the missing details on invoices, the service provider had paid the Service Tax, and the appellants had received the services. The appellants later produced the service registration number, emphasizing that the lack of detailed descriptions on invoices should not be a reason to deny them the credit of Service Tax.

Issue 3: Dispute over payment of Service Tax by the service provider
The dispute centered on the acknowledgment of the payment of Service Tax by the service provider and the utilization of services by the appellants. The appellants provided the service registration number as proof and argued that the service provider, even though not detailing the services on invoices, had paid the Service Tax under the Business Auxiliary Services category, which entitled the appellants to claim the credit.

Issue 4: Applicability of Business Auxiliary Services category
The appellants highlighted that the services received from the service provider fell under the Business Auxiliary Services category, for which the service provider had paid the Service Tax. Despite the lack of detailed descriptions on invoices, the appellants maintained that they should not be denied the credit based on hyper-technical grounds, especially when the payment of Service Tax and service utilization were not in dispute.

Issue 5: Confirmation of demands and imposition of penalties
The lower authorities confirmed the demands raised by the Revenue and imposed penalties on the appellants for availing credit based on incomplete invoices. However, upon review, the Member (J) found that the denial of substantial credit on the grounds of incomplete invoices was unjustified, considering the acknowledgment of Service Tax payment by the service provider and the utilization of services by the appellants. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and all three appeals were allowed with consequential relief to the appellants.

This detailed analysis of the judgment provides a comprehensive understanding of the issues involved, the arguments presented, and the final decision rendered by the Member (J) at the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT NEW DELHI.