TMI Blog2023 (4) TMI 434X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of waste is an activity of the appellant s manufacturing business. The service availed by the appellant is an integral part of the manufacturing process and hence the appellant is eligible for Cenvat credit. CENVAT Credit denial on the ground that the invoices not bearing registered address of the appellant and only having the address of the head office at Kolkata - HELD THAT:- The services were availed in Baddi but inadvertently address of the head office was mentioned in the invoice. The Tribunal has been consistently holding that the Cenvat credit/substantial benefit cannot be denied on technical/procedural lapse as held by the Tribunal in the case of M/S RAJENDER KUMAR ASSOCIATESS VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX, DELHI-II [ 2020 (11) TMI 621 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] and M/S ADBUR PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS CST, DELHI [ 2017 (5) TMI 101 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] - thus, the appellant is entitled to Cenvat credit on the input service received from D.K.Chajjar Co. Denial of CENVAT Credit - stand of the department is that the said activity was used for building structure whereas the stand of the appellant is that these services were availed with regard to repair and maintenance ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The demand is confirmed is restricted to normal period only in the case of input service received from Chhtrapati Engineering and Sai Engineering Works used for building structure and also expenses incurred on fee to Govt. department. In the circumstances, penalty under section 78 and 77 of Finance Act, 1994 are dropped. Appeal is allowed by way of remand. - Service Tax Appeal No.60397/2022 - FINAL ORDER NO. 60091/2023 - Dated:- 10-4-2023 - MR. S.S. GARG, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Present for the Appellant: Shri Naveen Bindal, Advocate Present for the Respondent: Ms. Geetika, AR ORDER The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated12.10.2022 passed by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals), who has dismissed the appeal of the appellant and confirmed the demand of service tax amounting to Rs.17,02,128/- along with interest and penalty of Rs.17,02,128/- under section 78 and Rs.10,000/- under section 77 (2) of Act read with section 174 of CGST Act, 2017. 2. Briefly facts of the case are that the appellant is registered with service tax department and was engaged in providing job work to M/s. Hindustan Unilever Ltd., Baddi and was paying service tax on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fully qualified under the definition of input service. He also submits that the disposal of waste generated out of manufacturing is a statutory obligation of the appellant and violation of the same would attract penal consequences. 6. In support of this submission, the appellant relied upon the decision of this Tribunal in the case of CCE ST vs. Lupin Limited- 2012 (28) STR 291 (Tri.-Mum.) wherein the Tribunal has categorically held that the waste management is statutory requirement and engaging third party for such management to remove waste from the factory premises is an integral part of the manufacturing and hence, the activity is eligible to credit. 7. With regard to the second allegation that the invoices shown the head office address of the appellant, he submits that they have received services from D.K. Chajjar Co. but on their invoice the address of Kolkata office was mentioned which is head office of the appellant and the address of the Kolkata office was inadvertently mentioned whereas the services were received by the appellant at Baddi, therefore, the credit was rightly taken. He further submits that mere mention of address of head office cannot be a ground t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t credit. Hence, the whole situation is Revenue neutral and no demand is sustainable. 10. He also submits that the allegation of suppression is also without any basis because suppression can be alleged if there is act of or omission on the part of the assessee coupled with intent to evade payment of duty/tax. There is no act of suppression misstatement ascertained by the department, as they have provided all information asked by the department, therefore, he prayed the extended period cannot be invoked on the basis audit points, and penalty also be dropped. 11. On the other hand, Ld.DR reiterated the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals). She further submits that the appellant is not entitled to claim Cenvat credit on sludge/waste management service because the said service has not been used in or in relation to output services neither directly nor indirectly. The said activity of disposal of waste is post manufacturing activity and cannot be covered under the definition of input service. 12. With regard to the invoices not bearing the address of registered premises, she submits that the invoices were issued by D.K.Chajjar Co. mentioning the address of Kolkata whereas t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f any permission or license granted by the Government or a local authority. The appellant has failed to explain as to why fees was paid to government departments, if not for some activity in return, as claimed by the appellant. 18. She further submits that the arguments of Ld. Counsel for the appellant that the whole situation is revenue neutral will not help the appellant. She also submits that the extended period was rightly invoked because the fact came to the knowledge of the department during the period of audit and if during audit, investigation has not been conducted, the material fact of receipt of invoices and payment made to the service provider would have remained unnoticed. 19. After considering the submissions made by both sides and perusal of the record. 20. I find that the issue involved in the present case is with regard to the denial of Cenvat credit on various input services as alleged by the department. I have carefully gone through the definition of input service as provided under Rule 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. 21. With regard to the denial of Cenvat credit on sludge/waste removal service, I hold that the disposal of waste generated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as been held that even if the tax is liable to be paid under RCM but the same is paid by the service provider, it was not open to the department to demand the same again from the assessee. Hence, I hold that demanding service tax from the appellant under reverse charge mechanism is not sustainable in law. As far as the demand of service tax paid to legal consultancy services is concerned, the same has been accepted by the appellant and amount of Rs.7,155/- has already been paid along with interest and penalty and the same has been appropriated by the original authority in their order. 26. Further, with regard to the demand of service tax under reverse charge mechanism on the expenses incurred on fee paid to various government department is concerned, I find that the issue is covered by the circular No.192/02/2016-ST dated 13.4.2016 and as per this circular the appellant is liable to service tax on this service. Moreover, the appellant has failed to explain as to why the fee was paid to the government department if not for some activity in return, as claimed by the appellant. 27. Now coming to the issue of extended period, I find that there is force in the appellant s contenti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
