9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (12) TMI 1050X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... utedly, the show cause notice has been issued to them for denial of the credit taken., whereas the appellant has summarized the utilization of the credit as not the credit taken. They have not substantiated their claim by ST-3 Returns to the effect that they have not taken the credit by producing the relevant cenvat credit register - Para 41 of the impugned order cannot be faulted with as the appellant has failed to produce the cenvat credit register before the concerned adjudicating authority. However, this issue becomes irrelevant. As the demand of service tax is being set aside, so is the demand of interest and penalty imposed on the appellant - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Service Tax Appeal No. 85141 of 2015 - FINAL ORDER NO. A/87381/2021 - Dated:- 23-12-2021 - MR. SANJIV SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) AND DR. SUVENDU KUMAR PATI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Shri Prasad Paranjape, Advocate, for the Appellant Shri Nitin Ranjan, Deputy Commissioner, Authorised Representative for the Respondent ORDER This appeal is directed against Order-in-Original No. 89/ST-II/RS/2014 dated 30.09.2014 of the Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai-II, wherein the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n raised at the addresses other than registered office premises. The assessee failed to show any invoices of the supplier of input service provider raised at the registered premises i.e. Milap Niketan, 8A, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi. Hence the total Cenvat credit of 6,17,37,765/- availed by the assessee on the addresses other than registered premises is not admissible and liable to be reversed. Further out of ₹ 6,17,37,765/- the assessee have utilized ₹ 5,28,32,883/- towards payment of Service Tax during the same period which is liable to be recovered. The detail of the Cenvat Credit availed and utilized as observed by CERA is as under: YEAR CENVAT CREDIT AVAILED (as per accounts) CENVAT CREDIT UTILISED (As per ST-3) 2006-07 ₹ 11,72,019 ₹ 1649604/- 2007-08 ₹ 1,92,30,955 ₹ 15747091/- 2008-09 ₹ 4,13,34,791 ₹ 35436188/- TOTAL ₹ 6,17,37,765 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ence the demand of ₹ 88 Lakhs also cannot be sustained. Accordingly their appeal be allowed. Extended period has been invoked when there was no suppression, wilful mis-statement etc. for justifying the invocation of extended period. 2.4 Arguing for the Revenue, learned Authorised Representative submits that The appellant was availing credit against invoices which were not issued in their name as the registered premises for providing output services. Therefore the Commissioner has proceeded rightly to deny the credit availed by the appellant. He has referred to paragraphs 27 to 31 of the impugned order and submitted that cenvat credit availed by the appellant could not have been allowed. On second issue, relying on para 41 of the impugned order, he submits that the appellant had not produced the relevant documents viz. cenvat register to establish their claim that the credit of ₹ 88 lakhs was not taken by them. 3.1 We have considered the impugned order along with the submissions made in the appeal and during the course of argument. 3.2 We find that the issue involved in the present case is squarely covered by the decision of the Tribunal in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tax credit as it is not possible to verify whether the branch offices have also availed Cenvat credit on the Service tax paid on the services. He would reiterate the findings of the learned Commissioner (Appeals). Para 5. We have considered the submissions made at length by both sides and perused the records. The issue to be decided in this case is whether the service provider (the appellant), in these cases can avail credit of Service tax paid as input service on the invoices issued in the name of their own branch offices. Para 6. It is undisputed in this case that the appellant is not having any Service tax registration, in respect of branch offices on whose name the invoices were issued by the service provider. It is also not disputed that the appellant has got centralized billing and centralized accounting system at Manipal Rule 4 of Service Tax Rules Provides for an assessee to get himself registered as Service tax provider. It is seen that in this case the appellant had taken registration under the category of service provider of advertising services. Rule 4(2) of Service Tax Rules, 1994 reads as under : (2) Where a person, liable for paying Service ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ore res-integra. The Appellants are eligible for the credit availed by them on the invoices issued to their branch offices. We thus set aside the impugned order and allow appeal with consequential relief. In view of the above judgment, the demand to this extent cannot be sustained. 3.3 The appellant has disputed the demand to the extent of ₹ 88,00,000/- and has submitted summary of the credit utilization as per table below:- Period Amount Period Amount Period Amount June-06 20,257 Oct-06 82,102 Apr-07 1,07,145 July-06 3,33,424 Nov-06 1,29,403 May-07 3,34,872 Aug-06 3,29,822 Dec-06 7,850 Jun-07 20,225 Sep-06 1,59,142 Jan-07 17,503 July-07 4,53,622 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed to another legal entity (v) credit notes issued to vendors and (vi) payment not made to vendors were not considered by the noticee as availed. The noticee, however, has not disputed the amount of credit utilized, except to a marginal amount of ₹ 5537/- when compared with credit utilized, amounting to ₹ 5,28,32,883/-, according to the SCN. Thus, as per the noticee, the entire credit availed amounting to ₹ 5,28,38,420/- was utilized by them towards payment of service tax. However, in support of their said claim of less availment of credit by ₹ 88,99,343/- the noticee has not produced any evidence, like their Cenvat credit registers maintained by them during the relevant period, or related ST-3 returns or any other document evidencing that the credit availed by them during the period of notice was ₹ 5,28,38,420/- only. Moreover the noticee themselves have in their reply submitted that some of the invoices on which credit availed pertains to another legal entity, and a major portion thereof was not considered as credit taken since payments have been made to the vendors subsequent to the period of SCN. However, such claim has not been supported by any do ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
