2017 (9) TMI 1259 - AT - Service Tax

Remand order upholds Cenvat credit for 'Construction Services' based on rectified invoices.

Commissioner of Service Tax, Chennai Versus M/s. Indusind Bank Ltd.

The Tribunal's remand order upheld the allowance of Cenvat credit for 'Construction Services' based on rectified invoices, dismissing the Revenue's appeal ... CENVAT credit - duty paying invoices - Construction Services - denial on the ground that the invoices stands raised in the name of their Project Manager and not in the assessee's name - Held that: - the Tribunal has approved the allowing of the credit on the basis of the rectified invoices. In such a scenario, the present appeal of the Revenue agitating the factum of allowing of credit on the basis of rectified invoices become infructuous - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. Issues: Denial of Cenvat credit for 'Construction Services' due to invoices raised in the name of Project Manager, granting of partial Cenvat credit by appellate authority, appeals filed before the Tribunal by both parties, remand of the matter to Commissioner (Appeals) by the Tribunal, challenge to Commissioner (Appeals) order by the respondents, Revenue's appeal becoming infructuous.Analysis:The original adjudicating authority denied Cenvat credit for service tax paid on 'Construction Services' as the invoices were in the name of the Project Manager, not the assessee. The Commissioner (Appeals) granted partial credit of around &8377; 22,70,000 but confirmed the denial of around &8377; 10,00,000 due to lack of rectified invoices. Both parties appealed to the Tribunal, with the Revenue objecting to the allowed credit and the assessee challenging the denied credit.The Tribunal remanded the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) to review the documents related to the denied credit. This action effectively approved the Commissioner (Appeals) decision to allow credit based on rectified invoices. The respondents informed that the Commissioner (Appeals) had already issued an order regarding the remanded portion of &8377; 10,00,000, and they had filed an appeal against it. The advocate argued that the Commissioner (Appeals) order, now indirectly approved by the Tribunal, merged with the Tribunal's decision, rendering the Revenue's appeal moot.Upon reviewing the orders, the Member (Judicial) found that the Tribunal's remand directed the Commissioner (Appeals) to consider the documents for the denied credit, implying approval of the credit based on rectified invoices. Consequently, the Revenue's appeal challenging the allowance of credit based on rectified invoices was deemed infructuous and dismissed.In conclusion, the Tribunal's remand order effectively upheld the allowance of credit based on rectified invoices, rendering the Revenue's appeal unnecessary and leading to its dismissal.