9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (11) TMI 621X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ring as an ISD. It has also contended by learned Counsel for the Appellant that no service tax was payable in respect of services imported prior to April 18, 2006. In this connection it has been pointed out that demand on ₹ 7038 was confirmed in respect of services imported from M/s P L Design Company Limited during the period 2005-06. The amount of service tax has been paid by the Appellant and it has also been appropriated in the impugned order. It is, therefore, not necessary to decide this issue. Except for the demand of ₹ 7038/- that has been appropriated, the remaining demands confirmed by the Commissioner in the impugned order are set aside - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Service Tax Appeal No. 52192 of 2016 - FINAL ORDER NO. 51574/2020 - Dated:- 24-9-2020 - HON BLE MR. JUSTICE DILIP GUPTA, PRESIDENT And HON BLE MR. C L MAHAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Shri B L Narasimhan, Advocate for the Appellant Shri K Poddar, Authorised Representative for the Department ORDER JUSTICE DILIP GUPTA 1. The Order dated February 29, 2016 passed by the Commissioner of Service Tax, New Delhi- the Commissioner confirming the demand of CE ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an ISD. (₹ 26,80,236 of credit availed in respect of invoices issued on the registered office also confirmed for want of proper documents.- Yes 2 Import of services, photography service and interior decorator service ₹ 2,80,975/- ₹ 29,548 (22,510 plus 7038) was paid by the Appellant with interest of ₹ 16,090 in respect of landscape design services imported from M/s. PL Design Co. Limited during the period 2005-06. This amount has been appropriated. No service was was held to be payable in respect of services received from M/s. Wilkahahn Asia Pacific as these related to furniture design consultancy , which became taxable only after 01.06.2007 Demand in respect of services received from M/s. Kumtron Nateethanasam was also dropped as the services did not qualify as photography service but conversion of 2D perspective to 3D perspective. These services were also received before 18.04.2006. The appellant is challenging ₹ 7038 paid as service tax as it relates to import of services in the year 2005-06, which is prior to section 66A bei ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he learned Counsel for the Appellant and the learned Authorised Representative of the Department have been considered. 7. The issues that arise for consideration in this appeal are; (i) Whether the invoices on which CENVAT credit was availed were proper invoices in terms of rule 4A of the 1994 Rules read with rule 9 of the 2004 Rules. (ii) Whether the Appellant is entitled to avail CENVAT credit on the strength of invoices/ bills issued to their office which is unregistered; and (iii) Whether the Appellant was required to obtain Central Excise Registration or ISD Registration for availing CENVAT credit on the invoices issued on a different address. 8. The Commissioner has held that the Appellant was not eligible to avail the CENVAT credit on the basis of invoices for two reasons. The first is that most of the invoices raised on the registered premises on the strength of which the Appellant had availed the CENVAT credit were not addressed to the Appellant or the said invoices were not in accordance with the conditions as laid down in 1994 Rules and the 2004 Rules. The second is that the Appellant did not have a centralized service tax registration for different office ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vided that if the said document does not contain all the particulars but contains the details of duty or service tax payable, description of the goods or taxable service, assessable value, Central Excise or Service Tax registration number of the person issuing the invoice, as the case may be, name and address of the factory or warehouse or premises of first or second stage dealers or provider of taxable service, and the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise or the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, as the case may be, is satisfied that the goods or service covered by the said document have been received and accounted for in the books of account of the receiver, he may allow the CENVAT credit. 11. In regard to the office situated at B5/116 Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi, which is registered with the Service Tax Department, the Commissioner observed as follow: From the certificate (issued by the M/s Bhasin Co., Chartered Accountant) and supporting documents submitted by the Noticee, I find that CENVAT credit availed by the Noticee on the basis of invoice/letter/debit note lack vital details and are not proper documents required for availing the CENVAT credit. The no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Noticee is required to obtain centralized service tax registration for their different offices or they are required to registered as input service distributor for availing the CENVAT credit on the invoices issued on the different address of the Noticee. 14. The Commissioner held that invoices should contain the address registered with the Service Tax Department and the findings are: Here it is pertinent to mention that Rule 4A of Service Tax Rules, 1994 speaks about invoices, bills and challans to be issued by the service provider. It states that invoices, bills and challans shall be serially numbered and shall contain the following, namely-(i) the name, address and the registration number of such person; (ii) the name and address of the person receiving taxable service; (iii) description and value of taxable service provided or agreed to be provided; and (iv) the service tax payable thereon. Further, sub-rule (2) of Rule 9 of CENVAT credit Rules, 2004 states that no CENVAT credit under sub-rule (1) shall be taken unless all the particulars as prescribed under the Central Excise Rules, 2002 or the Service Tax Rules, 1994, as the case may be, are contained in the said ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... riction. In the absence of a statutory provision which prescribed that registration is mandatory and that if such a registration is not made the assessee is not entitled to the benefit of refund, the three authorities committed a serious error in rejecting the claim for refund on the ground which is not existence in law. Therefore, said finding recorded by the Tribunal as well as by the lower authorities cannot be sustained. Accordingly, it is set aside . 17. A Division Bench of the Tribunal in Adbur Private Limited also observed as follows: 9. Regarding denial of Cenvat credit on the ground that the invoices were addressed to unregistered premises of the appellant, we note that there is no dispute regarding eligibility of input service for availability of credit to the appellant. The denial of credit is only with reference to address in the document. We find in various decisions, this Tribunal held that the credit cannot be denied on this reason. Reference can be made to the decision in Manipal Advertising Services Pvt. Ltd.(supra). We also note that in the appellant s own case on the same issue, the Original Authority for the later period held that denial of credit canno ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
