9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (9) TMI 137 - AT - Service TaxPartly denying a portion of credits - improper document and unavailable document - only on certain documents the Service Tax registration numbers were not reflected which should have been treated as procedural infraction - HELD THAT - It is not the case of the Appellant that Service Tax registration was not taken at the time bill copies were printed but it appears that the registration numbers were purposefully omitted from being reflected, in some of the invoices by deleting the same from the relevant place where as the same is found reflected in bill dated 12.06.2009. This aspect is not referred in the show-cause notice though the same show-cause notice was issued on the basis of investigation but the genuineness of the invoices are doubtful since placing the Service Tax registration number is conspicuous by its absence that would put the invoices in the category of inadmissible document. On the issue of taking credit without supporting invoices Appellant might have procured/discovered those invoices subsequently and produced the same at the time of hearing of these appeals before this Tribunal but the same cannot be taken as additional piece of evidence in the absence of following procedure contained in Rule 23 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982, when manifestedly the Commissioner had made categorical observation with reference to Assessee-Appellant s own reply letter that they had no other document available at their end for production. Appeal dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the order partly allowing and partly denying CENVAT Credits. 2. Non-filing of service tax return within the due date. 3. Availing CENVAT Credit against Construction Service. 4. Availing CENVAT Credit against invoices without Service Tax Registration Number. 5. Availing CENVAT Credit on missing invoices. 6. Invocation of extended period for issuing show-cause notice. 7. Admissibility of input credits on construction-related services. Summary: 1. Legality of the Order Partly Allowing and Partly Denying CENVAT Credits: The Commissioner's order dated 15.03.2018 disallowed CENVAT Credit of Rs. 1,04,20,879/- and dropped the demand of Rs. 99,51,627/-. Both the Assessee and the Department filed appeals against the portions of the order affecting them. 2. Non-filing of Service Tax Return within the Due Date: The Assessee failed to file the service tax return for the period from October 2011 to March 2012 by the due date of 25th April 2012, contravening Section 70 of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Rule 7 of Service Tax Rules, 1994. 3. Availing CENVAT Credit against Construction Service: The Assessee availed CENVAT Credit against Construction Service, which was not considered an "input service" for providing their output service, violating Rule 3(1) & Rule 3(4) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. 4. Availing CENVAT Credit against Invoices without Service Tax Registration Number: The Assessee availed CENVAT Credit against invoices that did not bear the Service Tax Registration Number of the respective Service Provider, contravening Rule 9(1)(f) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Rule 4A(1) of Service Tax Rules, 1994. 5. Availing CENVAT Credit on Missing Invoices: The Assessee availed CENVAT Credit on invoices/bills that were not available, violating Rule 9(1)(f) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Rule 4A(1) of Service Tax Rules, 1994. 6. Invocation of Extended Period for Issuing Show-Cause Notice: The show-cause notice dated 10.01.2014 was issued beyond the period of limitation of 18 months. The Assessee argued that the grounds for invoking the extended period like wilful suppression were not conclusively established by the Revenue. 7. Admissibility of Input Credits on Construction-Related Services: The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision allowing credits availed on construction services, citing judgments like Sai Samhita Storages (P) Ltd. and Mundra Port And Special Economic Zone Ltd., which supported the admissibility of such credits for providing Storage and Warehousing services. Conclusion: The appeals filed by both the Assessee and the Department were dismissed, and the order passed by the Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Raigad, was confirmed. The Tribunal found no merit in the Departmental appeal and upheld the findings of the Commissioner regarding the inadmissibility of credits availed by the Assessee on improper and unavailable documents.
|
