2020 (10) TMI 676 - AT - Service Tax

CENVAT Credit - input/input services - renting of immovable property service - advertisement service - business support service - security service - legal consultancy service, etc. - period April, 2010 to June, 2012 - HELD THAT - The issues in this appeals are no longer res integra and the same have been decided in favour of the appellant by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) - credit on all services allowed. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Issues Involved:
1. Admissibility of CENVAT credit on input services.
2. Alleged short payment of service tax.
3. Non-submission of documents for verification.
4. Applicability of CBEC Circulars regarding CENVAT credit.
5. Utilization of already disallowed credit.
6. Imposition of penalty and recovery of interest.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Admissibility of CENVAT credit on input services:
The appellant, Naman Mall Management Company Ltd., availed CENVAT credit on input services such as security services, repair and maintenance, and legal and professional services. The Revenue contended that the CENVAT credit of ?36,48,409/- was inadmissible as the appellant failed to provide necessary documents for verification, citing Rule 2(k) & (l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules. However, it was found that the appellant had been filing regular ST-3 Returns and had shown income from renting of immovable property, maintenance charges, etc., on which they were paying service tax. The Commissioner (Appeals) had previously allowed similar credits for a subsequent period, establishing that the appellant had shown billed amounts and receipts in their ST-3 Returns and that the mall was operational since October 2009.

2. Alleged short payment of service tax:
The Revenue alleged short payment of service tax amounting to ?67,66,678/- for the period April 2011 to March 2012. The appellant argued that they had paid service tax based on receipts, and the short payment was due to the transition to billing basis from 1.4.2011. The Commissioner (Appeals) found that the construction of the mall was completed in 2009-2010, and the appellant had been providing taxable output services since then. Therefore, the allegation of short payment was not substantiated.

3. Non-submission of documents for verification:
The Revenue's claim that the appellant did not provide documents for verification was found to be an afterthought and beyond the charges framed in the show cause notice. The appellant had submitted CA-certified CENVAT Credit Registers and expressed willingness to produce invoices if required. The Commissioner (Appeals) noted that the demand for documents was specific to the period covered by the initial show cause notice and could not be extended to subsequent periods without specific requests.

4. Applicability of CBEC Circulars regarding CENVAT credit:
The Revenue cited CBEC Circulars No. 96/7/2007-ST and 98/1/2008-ST to argue that CENVAT credit on services used for constructing immovable property was not eligible. However, the adjudicating authority did not discuss this aspect in the impugned order. The Commissioner (Appeals) refrained from discussing the merit of this issue as it was not part of the appellant's submissions.

5. Utilization of already disallowed credit:
The Revenue alleged that the appellant utilized already disallowed credit of ?31,73,225/-. The Commissioner (Appeals) found this allegation factually incorrect, as the credit in question was availed afresh during the period covered by the impugned show cause notice.

6. Imposition of penalty and recovery of interest:
Given that the appellant was entitled to avail CENVAT credit, the imposition of penalty and recovery of interest was deemed unlawful. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the adjudication order, holding it not legal, proper, or correct.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal found that the issues in the appeal were already decided in favor of the appellant by the Commissioner (Appeals) in a previous order dated 25.05.2018, which had been accepted by the Revenue. Consequently, the present appeal was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside, entitling the appellant to consequential benefits in accordance with the law.

← Previous Next →