Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2013 (11) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (11) TMI 768 - CESTAT AHMEDABADCENVAT Credit - Invocation of extended period - Whether appellant was right in taking credit on the basis of debit notes issued by M/s. Arvind V. Joshi & Company, Gandhidham (CHA) to the appellant - Held that:- It is seen from the representative copy of the debit note No. 538/2003-2004 dated 09.8.2003 relied upon by the appellant that the same describe an amount paid as Service Tax by the CHA on appellant s behalf to Kandla Dock Labour Board / Kandla Port Trust. However, the enclosed document dated 10.7.2003 issued by Kandla Dock Labour Board nowhere describe that CHA is acting or paying tax on behalf of the appellant. There is also no documentary evidence or contract to the effect that CHA was working as an agent of the appellant. A cenvat credit case can be taken only with respect to the services availed by the service recipient and the document indicating duty payment is in appellant’s name. So far as invocation of extended period is concerned, it is seen from the case records that ST-3 returns filed by the appellant has described CHA as the input service provider and the type of activities done by CHA are weighment, ground rent, port w/fage, handling charges, container lifting, Kandla Dock Labour Board charges etc. These ST 3 returns do not specify at all that Kandla Dock Labour Board charges and service tax are paid by the CHA on behalf of the appellant. The document indicating payment of service tax to Kandla Dock Labour Board and Kandla Port Trust also does not contain the name of appellant as service recipient . In view of the above, there is a misstatement on the part of the appellant and extended period will be attracted in this case - Decided against assessee.
|