Appellant wins service tax credit appeal despite handwritten bills

The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, allowing the credit of service tax paid on inputs services despite hand-written bills and non-remittance of tax by the service provider. The disallowance was deemed unjustified as the invoices' alleged deficiencies were not specified, and the lack of essential details in hand-written bills was not a valid ground to deny credit. The appeal was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside with any consequential reliefs granted.

---

---

Issues: Disallowance of credit of service tax paid on inputs services due to hand written bills and non-remittance of tax by service provider.

Analysis:
1. The appeal challenged the disallowance of credit of service tax paid on inputs services due to hand written bills not containing all required details and non-remittance of tax by the service provider.

2. The Original Authority allowed credit of a certain amount but disallowed a portion stating lack of necessary particulars in the invoices. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the disallowance due to lack of evidence of payment by the appellant.

3. The appellant argued that the show cause notice did not specify the deficiencies in the hand written bills, and credit cannot be denied solely based on bills being hand written or non-remittance by the service provider.

4. The respondent defended the disallowance, stating that the adjudicating authority allowed credit for the amount where tax was remitted to the Central Government, and the hand written bills lacked essential details justifying the disallowance.

5. The Tribunal noted that the service provider had indeed paid a substantial amount to the Central Government, and both lower authorities allowed credit for this despite the hand written nature of the invoices. The disallowance was solely based on non-remittance by the service provider, which was not a valid ground to deny credit to the appellant who paid the tax and provided invoices.

6. As the invoices' alleged deficiency was not specified, and no clear explanation was provided regarding essential details required by the Service Tax Rules, the disallowance lacked legal grounds. Consequently, the demand in the impugned order was deemed unjustified, leading to the order being set aside and the appeal allowed with any consequential reliefs.

---