9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (10) TMI 759 - AT - Service TaxCENVAT Credit - duty paying invoices - invoices did not contain the name of the appellant as the receiver of taxable service - Rule 9 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 - Held that - Sub-rule (2) of Rule 9 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 mandates that the documents based on which credit has to be availed, should contain the requisite particulars provided under the Central Excise Rules, 2002 or the Service Tax Rules, 1994 - However, the proviso clause appended to the said sub-rule (2) relaxes the condition regarding the contents in the document, and it has been prescribed therein that if the document contains the information regarding service, registration number, name and address of the service provider, then the jurisdictional service tax authority may allow CENVAT credit subject to his satisfaction that the services covered by the said document have actually been received and accounted for in the books of account of the receiver of such service. On perusal of the documents submitted by the learned Consultant, it is found that there is nexus between the service provider and the appellant - However, considering the fact that the requirement of sub-rule (2) of Rule 9 of the Rules have not been complied with by the appellant, the matter should go back to the original authority for proper appreciation of the fact, whether the benefit provided in the proviso clause appended to sub-rule (2) of the Rule 9 ibid can be extended to the appellant for the CENVAT credit. Appeal allowed by way of remand.
Issues:
CENVAT credit denial based on invoices not addressed to appellant, Compliance with Rule 9(2) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, Tripartite arrangement between parties affecting CENVAT credit eligibility. Analysis: 1. CENVAT Credit Denial Based on Invoices Not Addressed to Appellant: The case involved a dispute regarding the appellant's entitlement to CENVAT credit for service tax paid on invoices issued by M/s Bloomerg to M/s Deutsch Bank A.G., not directly to the appellant. The department contended that since the invoices were not addressed to the appellant and the payment was reimbursed by M/s Deutsch Bank A.G., the appellant did not actually pay for the services. The adjudicating authority upheld the denial of CENVAT credit, emphasizing the lack of payment by the appellant for the services mentioned in the invoices. The Tribunal noted the tripartite arrangement among the appellant, M/s Deutsch Bank A.G., and M/s Bloomerg, highlighting that the appellant had paid for the services, including service tax, to M/s Bloomerg. The Tribunal acknowledged the appellant as the recipient of the input service and directed a re-examination by the original authority to determine if the appellant could avail CENVAT credit based on the proviso clause of Rule 9(2) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. 2. Compliance with Rule 9(2) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004: The Tribunal referred to Rule 9(2) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, which mandates that documents for availing credit must contain specific particulars. However, the proviso to Rule 9(2) allows for relaxation if certain information is provided, subject to satisfaction that services have been received and accounted for. The appellant argued that the procedural requirement could be condoned as services were accounted for in their books. The Tribunal recognized the non-compliance with Rule 9(2) but emphasized the need for a thorough examination by the original authority to determine if the proviso clause could apply in this case. 3. Tripartite Arrangement Between Parties Affecting CENVAT Credit Eligibility: The Tribunal acknowledged the existence of a tripartite arrangement involving the appellant, M/s Deutsch Bank A.G., and M/s Bloomerg. Despite the invoices not being addressed directly to the appellant, the Tribunal recognized the appellant's role as the recipient of the services based on the payments made. The Tribunal concluded that the matter required further scrutiny by the original authority to assess if the appellant could qualify for CENVAT credit under the specific circumstances of the case. The Tribunal allowed the appeal by remanding the case for a fresh adjudication order, emphasizing the need for a personal hearing for the appellant during the reevaluation process.
|
