9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (8) TMI 604X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the invoices against which the credit has been availed while showing the name of service recipient some other address which is not mentioned in the ST-2 certificate. Reliance placed in the case of M/S BRIDAL JEWELLERY MFG CO. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, C.E. S.T., NOIDA [ 2017 (11) TMI 940 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD] where it was held that The substantial benefit cannot be denied for mere technical or venial breach of the procedural law. In the case of M/S. ALLSPHERES ENTERTAINMENT PVT. LTD. VERSUS CCE, MEERUT [ 2015 (8) TMI 953 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] where it was held that In the absence of any such dispute regarding availment of services and their utilization for payment of service tax or proper accounting of the same, the denial ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing which such failure continues or at the rate of two percent of such tax, per month, whichever is higher, starting with the first day after the due date till the date of actual payment of the confirmed demand, under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994. (c) I impose a penalty of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) upon the party under the provisions of Section 77 (1) (c) (iii) of the Finance Act, 1994. 2.1 Brief facts of the case are that the appellants were issued with a show cause notice dated 03.10.2012. One of the allegations that was made in the show cause notice was in respect of wrong availment of Cenvat credit of service tax paid on renovation of facilities at Logix Techno Park Map at Sector-127, Noida. It was stated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 3.3 Learned Authorized Representative reiterates the findings referred in the impugned order. 4.1 I have considered the impugned order along with the submissions made in the appeal and during the course of argument. 4.2 The only issue for consideration in the present appeal is whether the Cenvat credit of service tax paid on input services which received by the appellant on the premises not indicated in their ST-2 certificate (registration certificate), can be allowed. 4.3 I find that the issue is no longer res integra and the Tribunal has in series of cases held that so far as the receipt of input services by the output service provider is not in dispute. The credit cannot be denied merely for the reason that these services w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hallans to be issued by the service provider. It states that invoices, bills and challan 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. It nowhere states that the address of person receiving taxable service should be a registered premises. 4. Again 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for payment of service tax or proper accounting of the same, the denial of Cenvat Credit of service tax paid by Nainital office of the appellant on the sole ground that the invoices issued are in the name of the appellants' unregistered office at Delhi is unjustified. The head office which is registered with the Department has discharged the service tax liability. The defect in the invoices are only procedural lapse or rather a curable defect. In such circumstances, I am of the view that denial of Cenvat Credit by the authorities below is not justified. M/s Manipal Advertising Services Pvt. Ltd. [2010 (19) S.T.R. 506 (Tri.-Bang.)] 7. If a person is discharging service tax liability from his registered premises, the benefit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rious 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. 4.3 In following cases it has been held that the CENVAT Credit cannot be denied for the reason that the appellant has produced a photocopy of the invoice. Such lapses have been held to be procedural lapse for which the credit availed will not become inadmissible. Steelco Hujarat Limited [2010] 3 Taxmann.com 388. Pepsiso India Holding P. Limited [2017] 77 Taxmann.com 299. Shah Precicast P. Limited [2012] 25 Taxmann.com 299 Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Limited [2016] 65 Taxmann.com 121 4.4 In vie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
