2015 (5) TMI 633 - AT - Service Tax

Tribunal grants waiver of Cenvat Credit pre-deposit, interest, and penalty

IOT Design & Engineering Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai

The Tribunal allowed the appellant's application for waiver of pre-deposit of Cenvat Credit, interest, and penalty amounting to Rs. 40,70,231. The ... Waiver of pre deposit - Denial of CENVAT Credit - Held that:- Appellant is having service tax registration at their Bombay office and it is undisputed fact that for the services rendered by the appellant from various branches, the appellant discharges service tax liability in Bombay. It is also undisputed that the Cenvat Credit availed by the appellant on the various documents of service providers are provided to the branch office of the appellant. - prima facie, appellant cannot be denied Cenvat Credit of the service provider to the branches of the appellant. The appellant has claimed and is a undisputed fact that they have discharged service tax liability on the services rendered by the branches to the customers. - Stay granted. Issues:1. Waiver of pre-deposit of Cenvat Credit, interest, and penalty amounting to Rs. 40,70,231.Analysis:The appellant filed a stay petition seeking waiver of pre-deposit of an amount confirmed as ineligible Cenvat Credit availed, along with interest and penalty. The issue revolved around the denial of Cenvat Credit to the appellant by the Revenue on the grounds that the branch offices of the appellant were not registered with the service tax department. The appellant argued that services provided to these branches were utilized for discharging service tax liability, and centralised accounting and billing were undertaken from the main office, which was registered with the authorities. It was established that the appellant had service tax registration at their Bombay office and discharged service tax liability for services rendered by various branches. The Cenvat Credit availed by the appellant on documents from service providers was provided to the branch offices.Upon careful consideration of submissions and records, the Tribunal found that the appellant had a strong case for waiver of pre-deposit. It was noted that the appellant had discharged service tax liability for services rendered by branches to customers. The Tribunal held that the appellant could not be denied Cenvat Credit of the service provider to the branches, and the application for waiver of pre-deposit was allowed. The decision was supported by the ratio of a division bench of the Tribunal in a similar case. Consequently, recovery of the amount involved was stayed until the appeal's disposal.