Service tax credit on debit notes failed where recipient status was unproved and return disclosures supported extended limitation.

Service tax credit was not available where the only supporting document was a debit note issued by a Customs House Agent showing tax paid to Kandla Dock Labour Board and Kandla Port Trust, because it did not establish that the appellant was the recipient of the service or that the agent acted on its behalf. In the absence of a supporting contract or other documentary evidence, and where the tax-payment document was not in the appellant's name, the prescribed credit-taking conditions were not met. The failure to disclose in the returns that the tax was paid by the agent on the appellant's behalf was treated as a misstatement, supporting invocation of the extended limitation period.

---

---

Issues: Whether service tax credit could be availed on the strength of debit notes issued by the Customs House Agent for tax paid to Kandla Dock Labour Board and Kandla Port Trust, and whether extended limitation was invocable on the facts.

Analysis: The debit note merely reflected tax paid by the Customs House Agent and did not show that the service provider had rendered any service to the appellant or that the agent was acting on the appellant's behalf. There was no supporting contract or documentary evidence showing that the appellant was the recipient of the service, and the document evidencing tax payment was not in the appellant's name. The prescribed credit-taking requirements were therefore not satisfied. The returns also did not disclose that the tax was being paid by the agent on behalf of the appellant, which amounted to a misstatement supporting invocation of the extended period.

Conclusion: Service tax credit was not admissible, and the extended period was correctly invoked.

---