9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (8) TMI 177 - AT - Service TaxCENVAT Credit - duty paying invoices - denial on the ground that invoices/duty paying documents were not produced in the name of branch office service provider was unregistered etc. CENVAT Credit - Advertising Services - Consulting Engineer services - Business Auxiliary services - Held that - Appellant had taken a consistent stand that they have no other place of manufacturing other than the place mentioned, no credit is availed at the branch office though received the services, the payment to such service providers are made from the factory premises of the appellants. Since the payments were from Centralized account, being factory, CENVAT credit should not be denied - credit allowed. CENVAT Credit - credit is denied mainly on the ground that appellant did not produce relevant documents - Held that - If appellant is able to produce some documents to show the service tax liability was discharged by the service providers, and then the lower authorities should examined the same - matter on remand. CENVAT Credit - Travel Agency services - Business Auxiliary services - Chartered Accountant services - Maintenance & Repair services - Technical Testing services - Held that - The First Appellate Authority has correctly upheld the claim of the assessee as eligible to avail CENVAT credit and has appreciated the facts correctly in as much he has allowed the CENVAT credit - the order of the First Appellate Authority cannot be faulted - credit allowed. Appeal disposed off.
Issues involved:
1. Eligibility of CENVAT credit for various input services. 2. Denial of credit due to invoices not in the name of the branch office service provider. 3. Denial of credit based on lack of production of documents. 4. Appeal filed by the Revenue against the Order-in-Appeal. Analysis: Issue 1: Eligibility of CENVAT credit for various input services The appeals revolved around the eligibility to avail CENVAT credit for input services like Storage and Warehousing Services, Travel Agent service, Cargo Handling service, Technical Testing and Analysis services, Commissioning and Advertising Agency services, Consulting Engineer services, and Insurance Auxiliary services. The lower authorities had denied the credit citing reasons such as invoices not being produced in the name of the branch office service provider and being unregistered. The appellant argued that the denial was unjustified as the services were essential for their manufacturing process. The Tribunal, after considering the submissions, found that the denial of CENVAT credit was incorrect. The Tribunal referred to previous decisions and legal provisions to support their decision to allow the credit for the mentioned input services. Issue 2: Denial of credit due to invoices not in the name of the branch office service provider The denial of CENVAT credit in some appeals was based on the invoices being in the name of the branch office and head office, leading to a violation of the CENVAT Credit Rules. However, the Tribunal found that the denial was unwarranted as the services were indeed received by the appellant, and payments were made from the factory premises. The Tribunal cited precedents and legal principles to support the appellant's claim for CENVAT credit despite the invoices not being in the factory's name. Issue 3: Denial of credit based on lack of production of documents In certain appeals, the denial of service tax credit was primarily due to the appellant's failure to produce relevant documents. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of allowing the appellant to present documents demonstrating the discharge of service tax liability by the service providers. The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and remanded the matter back to the lower authorities for a reevaluation following the principles of natural justice. Issue 4: Appeal filed by the Revenue against the Order-in-Appeal The Revenue had filed an appeal against the Order-in-Appeal, contesting the eligibility of the appellant to avail CENVAT credit for various services. However, the Tribunal upheld the decision of the First Appellate Authority, ruling in favor of the appellant and allowing the CENVAT credit for services like Travel Agency services, Business Auxiliary services, Chartered Accountant services, Maintenance & Repair services, and Technical Testing services. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeal, affirming the correctness of the First Appellate Authority's decision. Overall, the Tribunal disposed of all appeals, allowing CENVAT credit for the input services in question and remanding certain cases back to the lower authorities for further examination. The judgments were pronounced on 27/07/2018 in open court.
|
