Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2021 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (8) TMI 232 - AT - Central ExciseCENVAT Credit - input services - Rent-a-Cab services - Insurance services - Membership Fees - Travel Expenses (Foreign) - period of dispute involved in this case is prior to April 2011 - levy of equal penalty - HELD THAT:- The un-amended definition of ‘input service’ among other taxable services, has included the phrase “activities relating to business”, for consideration as ‘input service’, for the purpose of availment of Cenvat benefit on the service tax component paid by the assessee. The said phrase finding place in the inclusive part of definition is very broad and takes within its ambit and purview the services used or utilised by the assessee for accomplishing its business purpose/activities - the disputed services in this case should merit consideration as ‘input service’ for the purpose of entitling an assessee to avail the Cenvat benefit. The appellant did not submit the documentary evidences either before the original or first appellate authority to demonstrate that it is entitled to avail the Cenvat credit on some of the disputed services. In this context, the learned AR appearing for Revenue also stated that the appellant did not submit the invoices or other documents before the authorities below to show that the disputed services namely, Rent-a- Cab and Travel expenses (Foreign) were actually used for carrying out the business purpose - Since, the onus lies with the appellant for proper substantiation of the fact regarding availment of Cenvat credit on the disputed services viz., Rent-a-Cab and Travel expenses (Foreign) has not been fulfilled, the denial of Cenvat benefit on such services in the impugned order cannot be faulted. Levy of equal penalty - Section 11AC of the erstwhile Central Excise Act, 1944 read with the erstwhile Rule 15 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - HELD THAT:- In this case, it is an undisputed fact on record that the appellant had maintained the statutory records, reflecting therein the particulars of availment of Cenvat credit on the entire disputed services and that the above irregularities were observed by the audit wing of department during the course of scrutiny of the records. Under such circumstances, it cannot be said that there is element of suppression in defrauding the Government revenue by the appellant - invocation of the penal provisions for imposition of penalty on the appellant, without proper corroboration of facts, will not meet the ends of justice. Appeal allowed in part.
|