9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (9) TMI 1092 - AT - Service TaxCENVAT Credit - services were provided to different service tax registered unit of the company - non-production of documents - improper input service documents - time limitation. Denial on the ground that the services were received at some other units/locations - HELD THAT - It is an undisputed fact that these services were used for providing taxable repair and maintenance services and they have discharged service tax liability on such output services from all the locations. The entire expenditure of Security Manpower services was incurred in relation to provision of taxable service by the Head office in whose name the invoices were raised and hence the Appellant is eligible for CENVAT credit in accordance with the provisions of Rule 2(l) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. Accordingly, we hold that the impugned order denying credit on this count is not sustainable. Denial on the ground that the documents could not be produced for verification - HELD HAT - The Appellant has relied upon various decisions of the Tribunal, wherein it has been held that so far as the receipt and utilization of the input services is not in dispute, Cenvat credit cannot be denied - the contention of the Appellant agreed upon that substantial benefit cannot be denied merely on account of procedural infractions. In the absence of any allegation with respect to eligibility of service as an input service and when substantial compliance has been fulfilled, the credit denied on account of procedural infractions is not sustainable. Time Limitation - HELD THAT - In this case, the demand has been raised in respect of the period from the 2nd Half of 2004-05 to 2007-08 vide SCN dated 30.03.2010, which is beyond the normal period of limitation of one year. As there was no suppression of fact with intention to evade the tax has been established in this case, the demand confirmed in the impugned order, except what is admitted and paid by the Appellant, is liable to be set aside on the ground of limitation also. Interest and penalty - HELD THAT - As the denial of credit is not sustainable, the demand of interest and imposition of penalty under Rule 15(2) of Cenvat Credit rules, 2004 is also not sustainable. The Cenvat credit denied in the impugned order is not sustainable except to the extent of Rs.7,35,792/-, which has been admitted and paid by the Appellant. Interest and penalty demanded in the impugned order is also not sustainable and set aside - Appeal disposed off.
Issues Involved:
1. Denial of Cenvat credit on the ground that services were provided to different service tax registered units. 2. Denial of Cenvat credit due to non-production of documents. 3. Denial of Cenvat credit due to improper input service documents. 4. Limitation of time for raising the demand. Summary: 1. Denial of Cenvat credit on the ground that services were provided to different service tax registered units: The Appellant argued that Cenvat credit cannot be denied merely because services were received at different units/locations since the entire excise would be revenue neutral. The services provided by Apolo Security & Detective Services and Laxmi Enterprises were used at various locations for maintenance and repair services. The Tribunal observed that the Head Office was separately registered and the invoices were raised in their name. Since there was no dispute regarding the receipt and eligibility of the services, the credit was deemed eligible under Rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The denial of credit on this ground was found unsustainable. 2. Denial of Cenvat credit due to non-production of documents: The Appellant submitted documents for Rs.4,00,008/- during the personal hearing and additional documents for Rs.1,72,251/- during the stay proceeding. However, they could not produce documents for Rs.7,35,792/-, which they subsequently paid along with interest. The Tribunal upheld the denial of credit for Rs.7,35,792/- but set aside the balance demand of Rs.5,72,259/-. No penalty was imposed as the amount was paid with interest. 3. Denial of Cenvat credit due to improper input service documents: The credit was denied based on procedural lapses like invoices being photocopies or lacking certain details. The Tribunal cited various judicial pronouncements stating that substantial benefits cannot be denied due to procedural infractions if the receipt and utilization of input services are not in dispute. The denial of credit on this ground was found unsustainable. 4. Limitation of time for raising the demand: The demand was raised for the period from the 2nd Half of 2004-05 to 2007-08 via SCN dated 30.03.2010, beyond the normal period of one year. The Tribunal found no evidence of suppression of facts with the intent to evade tax. Therefore, the demand, except for the amount admitted and paid by the Appellant, was set aside on the ground of limitation. Conclusion: The Tribunal held that the Cenvat credit denial in the impugned order was not sustainable except for Rs.7,35,792/-, which was admitted and paid by the Appellant. The demand for interest and penalty was also set aside. The appeal was disposed of accordingly. (Pronounced in the open court on 20.09.2023)
|
