9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (11) TMI 690X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... invoices - HELD THAT:- When the registration number of the service provider is available for verification, the credit ought not to have been denied merely because it is not mentioned as a part of the invoice when the same has been included later - the denial of credit on this ground cannot be justified. CENVAT Credit - credit was availed on the debit notes issued by the Input Service Distributor - denial on the ground that the same is not a prescribed document as per Rule 9 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 - HELD THAT:- In case of any doubt, the Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner, as the case may be, can verify and call for further information. In the present case, the appellant has stated that the credit has been availed on the debit notes which have been issued by their Head Office, which has taken ISD registration. When there is no doubt with regard to the services availed and the tax paid, the credit ought not to have been denied - the credit is eligible. CENVAT Credit - denial on the ground that the appellant had not furnished the necessary documents - HELD THAT:- The credit in respect of the services provided by M/s. SMK Construction, M/s. Madras Chemicals Polymers ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... redit in respect of all the services are eligible, except for those which have been denied on the allegation that documents have not been produced, to the tune of Rs.43,739/- and Rs.91,926/- which are remanded to the Original Authority. The impugned order is modified to the extent of setting aside the disallowance of credit on all the services, except those services in regard to the amounts of Rs.43,739/- and Rs.91,926/-. Appeal allowed in part and part matter remanded. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... She submitted that the fourth reason for denial of the credit is that the appellant had not furnished the necessary documents; the services rendered by M/s. SMK Construction, M/s. Madras Chemicals & Polymers, etc., were denied by the authorities for the reason that the appellant had not produced sufficient documents. The Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that all the documents have been produced by the appellant, at present, and therefore, the credit may be allowed. 3.5 It is also submitted by the Learned Counsel for the appellant that a major portion of the credit has been denied alleging that the appellant has availed the input Service Tax credit on the entire consideration noted in the invoices though they have retained a part of the money with them without paying to the service provider at the time of making payment. She adverted to a sample invoice and submitted that Service Tax along with applicable cess has been charged on the full amount of consideration; that the practice was to retain 10% of the total consideration and the same has been mentioned in the invoice. The appellant having discharged Service Tax on the full amount of consideration, the retention of 10 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... both sides. 6. The first ground for denying the credit is that the invoices are addressed to the Mettur Plant-II and not to the address of the appellant at Cuddalore. Though it is alleged that the invoices are mentioned in the name of the Mettur Plant, the Department does not have a case that the services have been availed by the Mettur Plant. The appellant has submitted that the name of the unit was wrongly mentioned by the vendor. Taking note of this aspect, the denial of credit on this ground to the tune of Rs.958/- is allowed. 7. The second ground for denial of credit is that the Service Tax registration number of the service provider is not mentioned in the invoices. Learned Counsel for the appellant has produced sample copies to show that the registration number of the service provider was included in the invoices by a handwritten method. The Department has denied the credit alleging that the same was not part of the invoice. When the registration number of the service provider is available for verification, the credit ought not to have been denied merely because it is not mentioned as a 'part of the invoice' when the same has been included later. I hold that the denial of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by the appellant are with regard to the reimbursement of travel expenses. The Banking Charges along with Service Tax were paid by the appellant on the amount that has been transacted through the bank. I hold that the credit on such Banking Charges is eligible and is, therefore, allowed. 12.1 It is noted that a major portion of the disallowance of credit is in respect of the input Service Tax credit with regard to retention of money by the appellant. Learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that they have retained a small part of the consideration (10% of the consideration) while paying the amount to the service provider. This is only as abundant caution for completing the services and also as a measure for maintaining the quality of the services. On perusal of the invoices, it can be seen that the Service Tax has been charged on the entire consideration amount and the appellant has retained only 10% of such consideration. In other words, the appellant has paid Service Tax on the entire consideration. Only ten per cent has been deducted from the consideration and this amount does not include the Service Tax element. For example, if the consideration paid is Rs.48,000/-, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
