2018 (6) TMI 675 - AT - Service Tax

CENVAT credit - duty paying invoices - invoices did not contain the mandatory details - demand of tax with interest and penalty - Held that - Nothing is brought out from the records to show that the appellant has not availed the services or has not paid the impugned service tax amounts. The only allegation is that the required details are not reflecting from the invoices - The invoice having been supplied by the service provider, the appellant cannot be saddled with suppression of facts with intent to evade payment of service tax on this allegation. There is no evidence necessary to establish that the appellant has suppressed facts with intent to evade payment of service tax. Therefore, the equal penalty imposed cannot sustain - service tax demand with interest upheld - appeal allowed in part.

Summary

Issues: Allegation of ineligible credit on ISD invoices due to lack of mandatory details, imposition of equal penalty, eligibility of credit, willful suppression of facts, confining contest to penalty.

In this case, the appellant was issued a show cause notice alleging that the credit availed on two input service distributor (ISD) invoices was not eligible due to missing mandatory details. The original authority confirmed the demand and imposed an equal penalty. The appellant contested the penalty, arguing that they are eligible for the credit, but are confining the contest to the penalty imposed. The appellant claimed to have availed services from a real estate agent and for dispute settlement, but the invoices lacked necessary particulars. The appellant relied on a rule stating that if the amount is properly accounted for, credit should be allowed even if the invoices lack details. The appellant argued that there was no willful suppression of facts to evade service tax payment. The appellate tribunal found that there was no evidence of willful suppression and set aside the equal penalty, upholding the service tax demand and interest without disturbing them. The appeal was partly allowed with consequential relief.

The main issue revolved around the eligibility of credit on ISD invoices due to the absence of mandatory details. The appellant argued that despite missing particulars, they were entitled to credit, but contested only the penalty imposed. The tribunal found that the appellant had not suppressed facts to evade service tax payment, leading to the setting aside of the equal penalty while upholding the service tax demand.

Another key issue was the appellant's argument regarding the proper accounting of the service amounts even with incomplete invoices. The appellant relied on a rule stating that if the amount is properly accounted for, credit should be allowed, despite missing details. The tribunal considered this argument but ultimately focused on the lack of evidence of willful suppression, leading to the setting aside of the penalty.

The judgment highlighted the importance of furnishing necessary details in invoices for claiming credit. The tribunal emphasized that while missing particulars may affect credit eligibility, the absence of willful suppression is crucial in penalty imposition. The decision provided clarity on the distinction between credit eligibility and penalty imposition based on the evidence of intent to evade service tax payment.