Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2023 (9) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (9) TMI 1092 - AT - Service TaxCENVAT Credit - services were provided to different service tax registered unit of the company - non-production of documents - improper input service documents - time limitation. Denial on the ground that the services were received at some other units/locations - HELD THAT:- It is an undisputed fact that these services were used for providing taxable repair and maintenance services and they have discharged service tax liability on such output services from all the locations. The entire expenditure of Security & Manpower services was incurred in relation to provision of taxable service by the Head office in whose name the invoices were raised and hence the Appellant is eligible for CENVAT credit in accordance with the provisions of Rule 2(l) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. Accordingly, we hold that the impugned order denying credit on this count is not sustainable. Denial on the ground that the documents could not be produced for verification - HELD HAT:- The Appellant has relied upon various decisions of the Tribunal, wherein it has been held that so far as the receipt and utilization of the input services is not in dispute, Cenvat credit cannot be denied - the contention of the Appellant agreed upon that substantial benefit cannot be denied merely on account of procedural infractions. In the absence of any allegation with respect to eligibility of service as an input service and when substantial compliance has been fulfilled, the credit denied on account of procedural infractions is not sustainable. Time Limitation - HELD THAT:- In this case, the demand has been raised in respect of the period from the 2nd Half of 2004-05 to 2007-08 vide SCN dated 30.03.2010, which is beyond the normal period of limitation of one year. As there was no suppression of fact with intention to evade the tax has been established in this case, the demand confirmed in the impugned order, except what is admitted and paid by the Appellant, is liable to be set aside on the ground of limitation also. Interest and penalty - HELD THAT:- As the denial of credit is not sustainable, the demand of interest and imposition of penalty under Rule 15(2) of Cenvat Credit rules, 2004 is also not sustainable. The Cenvat credit denied in the impugned order is not sustainable except to the extent of Rs.7,35,792/-, which has been admitted and paid by the Appellant. Interest and penalty demanded in the impugned order is also not sustainable and set aside - Appeal disposed off.
|