Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + HC Service Tax - 2017 (12) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (12) TMI 775 - HC - Service TaxCENVAT credit - Call centre services - non-registered premises - duty paying invoices - invoices containing name of the petitioner prior to its merger - case of the department is that since the invoices were raised in the name of unregistered premises, therefore, the petitioner's company is not eligible to claim the CENVAT Credit - according to petitioner, there is no provision under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 nor in Service Tax Rules, 1994 which mandates/provides that the registered address of the recipient is mandatory and has to be mentioned in the invoices for the availment of the credit - Section 69 of the Finance Act, 1994 - invoice issued prior to registration. Held that: - the adjudicating authority namely Commissioner himself has held that in regard to the issue no.(a) of ₹ 18.35 crores the Commissioner has dropped the demand for recovering of CENVAT Credit on the similar set of facts where the Commissioner has held under Rule 4(A) of Service Tax Rules, 1994, the requirement is only to "the name and address of the person receiving the taxable service" and there is no requirement that the name and registered address of the person receiving the taxable service are appeared on the invoice for taking input service credit and this has been repeatedly laid down by the various CESTAT Tribunals - Admittedly, against the order of the Commissioner dated 30.11.2015 no appeal has been preferred by the Department, therefore, in similar set of fact, the denial of the CENVAT Credit is appears to be prima facie wrong which requires consideration by the CESTAT. CENVAT credit - invoice containing old name of company - invoice issued prior to registration - Held that: - The aforesaid two issue involving a dispute and approximate denial of CENVAT Credit of ₹ 89.10 lakhs + 98.19 lakhs total sum of ₹ 187.29 lakhs (approximately) is yet to be decided by the CESTAT for which we refuse to accept the claim of the petitioner. Pre-deposit - Section 3F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - Held that: - petitioner be dispensed with the condition of pre-deposit of 7.5% for entertainment of the appeal by the appellate Tribunal with respect of issue of non-registered premises - pre-deposit for other two issues upheld. Petition allowed in part.
|