9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (6) TMI 666 - AT - Service Tax100% EOU - Refund of unutilized CENVAT Credit - invoices in terms of Rule 4A of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 - HELD THAT - The appellant is a 100% EOU and have availed various input services in the course of providing their output service. Denial of credit on account of non-availability of registration details of input service providers - HELD THAT - It is seen from the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) that the credit of ₹ 67,446/- had been rejected for the reason that invoice copies do not contain the registration no. of the service provider - On perusal of the documents, it is seen that the registration details of the input service provider were available and therefore, the rejection of refund on the ground of non-availability of registration No. in the invoices is not maintainable. Consequently, refund amounting to ₹ 67,446/- covered by such input service invoices, are allowable. The appellants are eligible for the refund - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues:
Claim for refund of unutilized CENVAT Credit based on invoices without Service Tax Registration number of the Service provider. Analysis: The case involved an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal regarding a refund claim of &8377; 3,11,809/- as unutilized CENVAT Credit by a company engaged in manufacturing and exporting readymade garments. The dispute arose when the Revenue contended that certain debit advices of Canara Bank, considered for refund, did not contain the Service Tax Registration number of the Service provider, making them ineligible as per Rule 4A of the Service Tax Rules, 1994. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the Revenue's appeal, setting aside the refund of &8377; 67,446/-. The appellant challenged this decision before the Tribunal. The appellant, represented by an advocate, argued that the Service Tax Registration number of the service provider was indeed mentioned in the relevant documents, including the Order-in-Original. They contended that the Commissioner (Appeals) failed to consider the evidence presented before him, leading to an erroneous appellate order. On the other hand, the Authorized Representative for the department supported the Order-in-Appeal during the hearing conducted via Video Conferencing. Upon reviewing the case, the Tribunal noted that the appellant, being a 100% Export-Oriented Unit (EOU), had availed various input services while providing their output service. The rejection of credit amounting to &8377; 67,446/- was based on the absence of the service provider's registration details in the invoice copies. However, the appellant's counsel clarified that the registration details were indeed present in the documents submitted, which were also available to the lower appellate authority. After examining the documents, the Tribunal found that the registration details of the input service provider were accessible, contradicting the grounds on which the refund was denied. Consequently, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, allowing the refund of &8377; 67,446/- covered by the input service invoices. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed, establishing the appellant's eligibility for the refund. In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment, delivered on 16 June 2021, highlighted the importance of ensuring the availability of necessary documentation, such as registration details, to support refund claims related to CENVAT Credit, ultimately upholding the appellant's right to claim the refund based on the provided evidence.
|
