9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 964X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion. It was held that the credit was allowable - credit allowed. CENVAT credit - Documents (telephone and mobile bills) in the name of others/ or other address - Rule 4A of Service tax Rules read with Rule 9 of Cenvat credit Rules, 2004 - Held that: - the telephone services relating to the necessity of business of the appellant, thus Service Tax paid by the appellant by way of reimbursement to its employees, the credit was properly allowable - credit allowed. CENVAT credit - denial on the ground that appellant did not produce the relevant documents in support of the credit - Held that: - this ground is vague as there is no list of invoices and/or entries in the Cenvat credit register, which are sought to be denied - this ground is allowed by way of remand with a direction to the Adjudicating Authority to give the list of relied upon documents in support of this amount and/ or the details relating to this amount, so that the appellant can meet the objection of the Revenue - matter on remand. CENVAT credit - credit being taken on E-bills/Xerox Copies of Bills - Rule 9 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - Held that: - From perusal of Rule 9 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, it states that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d without possession of proper/ requisite documents, against the provisions of Cenvat Credit Rules 2004. It further appeared to Revenue that the Cenvat credit was not allowable in terms of Rule 9 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Rule 4A of Service Tax Rules, 1994. It is further stated whereas during the course of audit of the records of the appellant in December 2012, on perusal of Cenvat credit account, it was noticed that the appellant availed Cenvat credit on input services amounting to ₹ 15,88, 130/- which appeared to be not admissible. The SCN further stated that in response to objections raised by the audit tearn, the appellant vide their letter dated 18/ 12/2012 had submitted some of the Xerox copies of invoices received via Internet and downloaded by them. With regard to invoices issued, prior to the centralized registration of a particular branch, the appellant submitted that when the Department is not disputing the character of the taxpaying invoice and the receipt of the service by them, so credit cannot be denied on technical grounds. It was also stated that although the appellant had taken centralized registration but due to numerous branch offices the name ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dered the submission. 5. Having considered the rival contentions and on perusal of the facts on record, I come to the conclusions that: (i) So far the first amount of ₹ 3,07,783/-, which has been disallowed for the reason that taxpaying documents relating to the period prior to taking centralized registration, for the period during which are particular branch was not registered. The Id. counsel points out that this amount relates to two branches namely; Meerut & Muzaffarnagar, so far as Meerut Branch is concerned, the same was applied to be included in the list of branches in the centralized registration certificate as early as 02/06/2012 and the same has been recognized by the Revenue in the ST-2 Certificate issued on 23/ 11/2012. So far as Muzaffarnagar Branch is concerned, it is stated that the same was in operation for a short period of a few months and the operations are closed and/or the Branch at Muzaffarnagar was closed and hence the same was not included in the centralized registration certificate. However the Revenue generated by the Muzaffarnagar Branch has been included in the centralized accounts maintained at the head office at Ghaziabad, which fact is not dis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce received on mobile phones of the assessee, which were operated by their staff, was held to be 'input service' and accordingly service tax paid thereon was allowable. In the facts of the present case, I find that there is no dispute that the mobile phones in the name of employees were not used by the employee for the business of the appellant company. In such facts, I hold the amount of ₹ 1,06,498/- is allowable Cenvat credit. (iii) For the amount of ₹ 7,91,644/- has been disallowed on the ground that appellant did not produce the relevant documents in support of the credit. I find that this ground is vague as there is no list of invoices and/or entries in the Cenvat credit register, which are sought to be denied. Accordingly, this ground is allowed by way of remand with a direction to the Adjudicating Authority to give the list of relied upon documents in support of this amount and/ or the details relating to this amount, so that the appellant can meet the objection of the Revenue, if any. (iv) Regarding the amount of ₹ 1,53,998/- credit being taken on E-bills/Xerox Copies of Bills. The Id. Commissioner (Appeals) have observed that under Rule 9 of Ce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for rendering the output service of maintenance of mobile towers. Accordingly, the amount of ₹ 1,87,182/- is held to be allowable Cenvat credit. (vi) The appellant have not contested the amount of ₹ 3,363/- and have also reversed the same, has also been recorded by the Id. Commissioner (Appeals). (vii) So far the amount of ₹ 37,882/- is concerned. The same relates to allegations like no correlation or improper bills for maintenance of the Xerox machines/ Outdoor Catering Services, etc. Out of this, the Id. Commissioner (Appeals) have held that appellant is entitled to Cenvat credit of maintenance and repair and have remanded on this issue v.-ith direction to re-compute the amount and allow the same. Accordingly, in the interest of justice, I remand the whole issue of ₹ 37,882/- to the Adjudicating Authority, to be considered after giving adequate opportunity to the appellant in accordance with law. 6. The appeal is allowed in part as mentioned hereinabove. To sum up, issue No. 1- the Cenvat credit of ₹ 3,07,783/-, held allowable. Issue No. 2 - ₹ 1,06,498/- allowable Cenvat credit. Issue No. 3 - amount of ₹ 7,91,644/- allowed by way of r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
