2019 (2) TMI 769 - AT - Service Tax

CENVAT credit - duty paying documents bogus invoices - bogus invoices or not - service tax paid by the sub-contractor - Held that - The invoices which are mentioned in the SCN are not relevant to the proceeding. The invoices which are now produced by the learned AR for the Revenue, being the same also enclosed by the learned CA for the appellant, but different from the ones in the show cause notice, therefore, it is prudent to remand the matter to the adjudicating authority to ascertain the fact - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues: Appeal against order-in-appeal disputing cenvat credit availed on alleged bogus invoices.

Analysis:
1. Facts of the Case: The appellant provided taxable services involving the supply of tangible goods during 2011-12. They did not have a branch office in Kolkata and subcontracted services to M/s. Sakshi Trade Link Pvt. Ltd. The Revenue disputed the cenvat credit of ?7,21,000 taken against five invoices from the subcontractor, alleging them to be bogus invoices.

2. Contentions: The appellant's Chartered Accountant argued that the disputed invoices mentioned in the show cause notice were not the ones against which credit was availed. They provided evidence like invoices and a certificate from the service receiver, M/s. Silicon Real Estate Pvt. Ltd., to support their claim of service receipt and payment.

3. Tribunal's Direction: The Tribunal directed the Revenue to produce copies of the disputed invoices. The Revenue presented the same invoices as those submitted by the appellant, acknowledging the discrepancy. The Revenue contended that the appellant availed inadmissible credit on fake invoices admitted by the subcontractor's director, suggesting a remand to verify the newly produced invoices.

4. Judgment: The Tribunal concluded that the issue revolved around the authenticity of the five disputed invoices for which the credit was claimed. The invoices in the show cause notice were found irrelevant, leading to a remand to the adjudicating authority for verification. The Tribunal emphasized granting the appellant a fair hearing during the process and kept all issues open for further examination.

5. Outcome: The appeal was allowed for remand to the adjudicating authority, ensuring a thorough verification of the disputed invoices to determine their genuineness. The judgment highlighted the importance of due process and fair opportunity for the appellant in resolving the matter effectively.