9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (9) TMI 412X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -2) issued by the Department - M/s. Creative Architects and Interiors is a proprietary concern of Ms. Varsha P. Jain and the concern and the Proprietix are legally one and the same - Credit of Service tax cannot be denied just because the invoice is in the name of the Proprietix Denial of the Cenvat Credit on Airtel Bills by assigning the reason that the other person whose name find place in the Invoice of Airtel Bills could have availed the credit – Held that:- They have availed group scheme to cut cost and therefore Airtel always raises bills in the name of all people involved in the Group Scheme even if the bill relates to one of the Group Member -other group of company namely M/s. Creative Consultants has not availed the Credit of Se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dit Rules, 2004 read with Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994 and Service tax of Rs. 9,270/- under proviso to Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Section 68 ibid and Rule 6 of Service Tax Rules, 1994 along with interest in terms of Section 75 of the Finance Act and also proposal for imposing penalties under Section 76, 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 and also imposing penalty under Rule 15(4) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. After due process of law, the Lower Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demand of Service Tax of Rs. 9,270/- and recovery of wrongly availed Cenvat Credit of Rs. 8,960/- under proviso to Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Rule 14 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 along with interest under Sect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... one through e-commerce will not contain any signature; (vi) that the Lower Authority erred in going beyond the scope of the Show Cause Notice and denied the Cenvat Credit on Airtel Bills by assigning the reason that the other person whose name find place in the Invoice of Airtel Bills could have availed the credit; (vii) that the Lower Authority failed to consider that even though the Architect certificate is in the name of Proprietrix, viz., Varsha Pramod Jain and still appellant is paying the service tax for service rendered by it under the name of Creative Architects Interiors and the Department has also considered proprietrix and her concern as one but while dealing with the Cenvat Credit they consider both as different, it is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... supporting documents evidencing the payment of Service tax. 4.2 Under the above circumstances, he has requested to allow the appeal by setting aside the Order-in-original. He has also filed compilation of Case Laws. 5. I have carefully gone through the case records and submissions made oral as well as written by the appellant. After disposing of the stay petition, let me take up the main appeal itself for decision. The issues to be decided in the instant case are whether the appellant - (i) is liable to pay service tax on the money received from SCL, and (ii) is eligible for the Cenvat credit on service tax paid on mobile phone allotted to his client and Cenvat credit on service tax paid on insurance, repair and maintenanc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt and M/s. SCL, nor the appellant had provided any service in the instant case. Hence, I hold that the demand on this score is not sustainable in law and set aside the same. II. Whether the appellant is eligible for the Cenvat credit on Service tax paid on mobile phone allotted to his client and Cenvat credit on Service tax paid on insurance, repair and maintenance charge of vehicle which is in the name of the proprietor? 6. I find that the Lower Authority had denied Cenvat Credit of Rs. 556/- on invoice of Moster.Com as there was no signature available in the invoice. The appellant had produced the copy of invoice for my perusal and it is seen that the invoice is a computer generated one and it is specifically mentioned in the inv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the denial of the Cenvat Credit on Airtel Bills by assigning the reason that the other person whose name find place in the Invoice of Airtel Bills could have availed the credit, the appellant had stated that they have availed group scheme to cut cost and therefore Airtel always raises bills in the name of all people involved in the Group Scheme even if the bill relates to one of the Group Member. The appellant also stated that the other group of company namely M/s. Creative Consultants has not availed the Credit of Service tax and submitted documentary proof in their support. In view of the above, I am inclined to accept the appellant s plea. 7. In view of the above discussions and conclusions arrived at, I set aside the impugned Order a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
