2009 (11) TMI 615 - AT - Service Tax

Appellate Tribunal Upholds Tax Credit Denial Due to Lack of Documentation

CHAMUNDI TEXTILES (SILK MILLS) LTD. Versus COMMR. OF C. EX., MYSORE

The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Bangalore confirmed the disallowance of credit of tax paid on input services by the appellants due to insufficient ... Stay - 100% EOU - Disallowance of Cenvat credit - the dispute is that there was no proper document evidencing payment of service tax by the appellants - This amount of credit is still lying in the Cenvat account of the appellants - Held that: - service tax on warehousing of export cargo of the appellants - Condition of pre deposit waived. Issues: Disallowance of credit of tax paid on input services, proper documentation for service tax payment, computation of admissible refund of input service credit, clearance to SEZ for export turnover calculation.The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Bangalore involved the confirmation of the disallowance of credit of tax paid on input services by the appellants amounting to Rs. 29,621. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the disallowance and demanded the same due to the lack of proper documentation evidencing the payment of service tax by the appellants. The service tax in question was related to warehousing of export cargo by a CHA, and invoices for service tax were raised on the appellants by M/s. Passage Cargo Pvt. Ltd. through Central Warehousing Corporation. The dispute centered around the absence of adequate documentation showing the payment of service tax by the appellants to avail the credit, which remained in their Cenvat account. Additionally, the order reduced the export turnover of the appellants for the computation of the admissible refund of input service credit by disregarding clearance to SEZ as the goods were not physically exported.During the proceedings, the Tribunal considered the argument presented by the appellants, citing a previous decision in the case of NBM Industries v. CCE, Rajkot. In this case, the Tribunal allowed a refund of accumulated credit by treating clearance to 100% E.O.U as exports. The Tribunal noted that the impugned order did not impose a liability on the appellants concerning this issue, thereby eliminating the need for pre-deposit. Consequently, the Tribunal ruled in favor of waiving the pre-deposit of the dues determined in the impugned order and stayed the recovery pending the decision in the appeals.In conclusion, the judgment addressed the issues of proper documentation for service tax payment, computation of admissible refund of input service credit, and the treatment of clearance to SEZ for export turnover calculation. The Tribunal's decision highlighted the importance of documentation in claiming tax credits and considered precedents in similar cases to determine the liability and pre-deposit requirements for the appellants.