2019 (9) TMI 1186 - AT - Service Tax

Appeal allowed, remanded for fresh adjudication emphasizing evidence review and fair process.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal by remanding the matter back to the original authority for de novo adjudication for the period 2014-15. The decision ... CENVAT Credit - input services - General Insurance Services - Repair & Maintenance of vehicles - service Tax paid on expenses of staff welfare - denial on account of nexus with output services - period 2010-11 to 2013 -14 and 2014-15 - HELD THAT:- As per the impugned order of the learned commissioner, the appellant failed to produce any evidence to substantiate its claim whereas the learned chartered account submitted that all the evidence were submitted but both the authorities below failed to look into the same. Be that as it may, without going into the merits of the matter, the case is remitted back to the original authority for the period 2014-15 also for de novo adjudication after following the principle of natural justice - appeal allowed by way of remand. Issues:Challenge to impugned order dated 31/03/2018 regarding availing Cenvat credit for specific input services without nexus to output services provided by the Appellant.Analysis:The appeal challenged the impugned order dated 31/03/2018 passed by the Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise Commissionerate, Belapur concerning the availing of Cenvat credit for General Insurance Services, Repair & Maintenance of vehicles, and service Tax paid on staff welfare expenses by the Appellant. The Appellants, engaged in various services, were found to have availed Cenvat credit for these input services during specific periods without a direct nexus to the output services they provided. Show cause notices were issued for the periods 2010-11 to 2013-14 and 2014-15. The Appellant's appeal for the earlier period was allowed by remand by the Tribunal, directing a speaking order. In the present matter, the authorities below were criticized for not providing specific findings and failing to consider the evidence submitted by the Appellant. The Appellant requested a remand to the original authority, arguing that the impugned order lacked specificity. The learned Commissioner held that the Appellant did not submit evidence to support their claim, while the Appellant contended that all relevant documents were produced but not considered by the authorities. The Tribunal, without delving into the merits, decided to remand the matter back to the original authority for de novo adjudication for the period 2014-15. The Appellants were directed to provide all relevant documents to enable the adjudicating authority to pass a speaking order, following the principle of natural justice.Conclusion:The Tribunal allowed the appeal by way of remand, emphasizing the importance of considering all evidence and issuing a speaking order. The decision aimed to ensure a fair adjudication process based on the principles of natural justice, directing the Appellants to produce all relevant documents for the adjudicating authority's review.