2016 (11) TMI 1333 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - input service - Construction Service - Held that - it has been disputed by the Revenue that the construction services have been availed by the appellant outside the factory or within the factory is to be verified from the Registration Certificate issued to the appellant. Therefore, the matter needs examination at the end of the adjudicating authority. In that view, in the issue of availment of cenvat credit on construction service is remanded back to the adjudicating authority for verification, whether the services have been availed outside factory or within the factory. After verification, the issue is required to be decided. The Cenvat credit of ₹ 3090/- is denied for want of invoice. Address of the service provider was not mentioned on the invoices - Held that - Later on, the appellant has provided that the address of the service provider. In that circumstance, the adjudication order has to verify whether the address is the proper address of the service provider mentioned in the invoices the same is to be examined by the adjudicating authority. After verification, if it is found correct, the appellant is entitled for cenvat credit. Facilitation Charges Services - Held that - The contention of the appellant is that these charges have been paid by them .for negotiation of purchase of power. If the said service is with regard to the negotiation of purchase power, the appellant is entitled to avail cenvat credit and the same is to be examined by the adjudicating authority. Business related service namely Consultancy or Vehicle Service - Held that - fact is to be verified whether all the services pertains to prior to 01.04.2011 or not? If the services pertains to the period prior to 01.04.2011, the appellant is entitled to avail cenvat credit Courier Service - Held that - he Contention of the appellant is that courier services have been availed for sending urgent sample, documents of purchase or sale of the goods which needs verification at the end of the adjudicating authority, therefore, the adjudicating authority is directed to verify whether the said services have been availed on and after 01.04.2011 and to ascertain the fact that the appellant has availed courier service having nexus with the purchase and sale of the goods. In that case, the appellant is entitled to avail cenvat credit. Admittedly, for the period prior to 01.04.2011, the appellant is entitled to avail cenvat credit on courier service. Cenvat credit sought to be denied on the ground that invoices were not having registration number of the service provider. Later on, the appellant has provided this registration number. This fact is to be verified. The cenvat credit of ₹ 11,69,852/- is allowed subject to verification of registration number. There are several invoices wherein invoices number is given in hand writing. It is not disputed that the services have not been availed and the service tax has been paid by the appellant, therefore, the appellant is entitled to avail the cenvat credit on the said invoices to the tune of ₹ 1,44,190/-. Appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
1. Denial of cenvat credit on construction service
2. Absence of service provider's address on invoices
3. Facilitation charges services
4. Availment of business-related services prior to 01.04.2011
5. Availment of courier service for urgent samples/documents
6. Denial of credit due to missing registration number on invoices

Analysis:

(A) Construction Service:
The appellant sought cenvat credit on construction services for renovation within their factory premises. The Revenue disputed the location of service availed, necessitating verification from the Registration Certificate. The matter is remanded to the adjudicating authority for confirmation. The credit of &8377;3090/- is denied due to lack of invoices.

(B) Address of Service Provider:
Cenvat credit of &8377;6664/- was initially denied due to missing service provider addresses on invoices. Subsequently, the appellant provided the addresses for verification by the adjudicating authority. If found correct, the appellant is entitled to the credit.

(C) Facilitation Charges Services:
Charges for negotiation of power purchase were contested by the appellant for cenvat credit eligibility, pending examination by the adjudicating authority.

(D) Business Related Services:
Appellant claimed cenvat credit for services utilized in their business manufacturing pre-01.04.2011. Verification is required to ascertain the service period for credit entitlement, referencing a decision by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay.

(E) Courier Service:
Appellant availed courier services for urgent samples/documents related to goods transactions, necessitating verification by the adjudicating authority for eligibility post-01.04.2011. Credit for pre-01.04.2011 period is acknowledged.

(F) Denial of Credit:
Cenvat credit was challenged due to missing service provider registration numbers on invoices, later provided by the appellant. Verification is required for credit allowance. Invoices with handwritten numbers, where services were availed and tax paid, entitle the appellant to credit of &8377;1,44,190/-. The impugned order is set aside, and the appeal is allowed for remand to verify documents and issue a lawful order.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the issues, arguments, and decisions made by the tribunal concerning the denial and allowance of cenvat credit on various services, emphasizing the need for verification and adherence to legal precedents.