2019 (4) TMI 28 - AT - Service Tax

CENVAT Credit - input services - Air Travel Agent Services - period between April, 2011 to March, 2015 - non-production of various documents - Held that - I fail to understand why the appellant failed to produce the documents before the adjudicating authority or Commissioner (Appeals) when they could preserve the same systematically till date for production of the same before this Tribunal? However, examination of each and every documents concerning eligibility of CENVAT credit on Air Travel Agent Services cannot be done here, since the same would mount to mini adjudication but such sample examination made personally by me clearly defied the contention available in Order-in-Original and Order-in-Appeal that nonproduction of documents concerning purpose of travel as official was beyond the reach of the appellant. Thus, it is a fit case which is required to be remanded to the adjudicating authority for examination of documents concerning eligibility of appellant to avail CENVAT credit on Air Travel Agent Services - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues: Denial of CENVAT credit on Air Travel Agent Services challenged.

Analysis:
1. The appellant, a private limited company engaged in financial services, availed CENVAT credit on Air Travel Agent Services between April 2011 to March 2015, which was rejected by the authorities leading to three show-cause notices. The appellant contended that such services were essential for their business that required frequent travel by employees for official purposes.

2. The appellant argued that they complied with CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 by maintaining proper records of input services. The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the claim due to lack of substantial evidence showing the use of Air Travel Agent Services for official purposes. The appellant presented email communications and intimation to Air Travel Agents to establish the link between input and output services, citing relevant case laws supporting their claim.

3. The respondent-department supported the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision, stating that post a specific notification, Air Travel expenses were excluded from input services unless proven for official purposes. The Tribunal analyzed the Notification No. 3/2011-CE(NT) and Rule 2(l) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, highlighting that unless the travel was primarily for personal use, CENVAT credit was admissible. Sample invoices and email communications provided by the appellant demonstrated business-related travel to meet clients and attend training programs.

4. The Tribunal noted that the appellant failed to submit these crucial documents earlier in the proceedings, despite having them available systematically. However, after personally examining the sample documents, the Tribunal found sufficient evidence to remand the case to the adjudicating authority for a detailed examination of the eligibility of the appellant to avail CENVAT credit on Air Travel Agent Services.

5. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal by remanding the case to the adjudicating authority for further examination based on the provided documents. The order passed by the Commissioner of Central GST & Central Excise (Appeals) was set aside, emphasizing the need for a thorough review of the eligibility of CENVAT credit on Air Travel Agent Services.

This detailed analysis of the judgment provides insights into the arguments presented by both parties, the interpretation of relevant laws and notifications, and the Tribunal's decision to remand the case for further examination based on the evidence presented by the appellant.