2008 (3) TMI 69 - AT - Service Tax

Tribunal allows service tax credit after amendment but upholds disallowance due to incorrect invoice details.

The Tribunal set aside the disallowance of service tax credit amounting to Rs.5,18,027 after the appellant amended the registration certificate to include ... Eligibility for service tax credit where invoices are in the name of the assessee - effect of mismatch between invoice address and registration certificate on entitlement to credit - requirement that dutypaying documents be in the name of the claimant for claiming creditEligibility for service tax credit where invoices are in the name of the assessee - effect of mismatch between invoice address and registration certificate on entitlement to credit - Credit of Rs.5,18,027/- disallowed by the adjudicating authority was restored. - HELD THAT: - The Tribunal found that the invoices evidencing payment of service tax were issued in the name of the appellant, although the office address shown on those invoices differed from the address then recorded in the registration certificate. The appellant subsequently got the registration certificate amended so that the office address appearing on the invoices was included in the registration. Having regard to the fact that the invoices were in the name of the appellant and the registration was later amended to include the relevant address, the Tribunal held that denial of credit on the ground of the earlier address mismatch was not sustainable and set aside the disallowance. [Paras 7]Denial of credit of Rs.5,18,027/- was set aside and the credit allowed.Requirement that dutypaying documents be in the name of the claimant for claiming credit - Credit of Rs.57,527/- claimed in the name of 'M/s. Shelters' was held not admissible to the appellant. - HELD THAT: - The Tribunal noted that the dutypaying documents in respect of the Rs.57,527/- claim were not in the name of the appellant but in the name of another entity ('M/s. Shelters'). Although the appellant asserted a contractual arrangement to use the 'Shelters' brand and that telephones were in that name, the Tribunal emphasised that credit cannot be allowed where the dutypaying documents are not in the name of the claimant. On that basis the disallowance was upheld. [Paras 8]Denial of credit of Rs.57,527/- upheld.Final Conclusion: Appeal partly allowed: disallowance of credit of Rs.5,18,027/- set aside; disallowance of credit of Rs.57,527/- upheld and the impugned order modified accordingly. Issues:1. Disallowance of service tax credit of Rs.5,18,027.2. Disallowance of service tax credit of Rs.57,527.Analysis:1. The appellant contested the disallowance of service tax credit amounting to Rs.5,18,027. The appellant argued that although the invoices were in their name, the address mentioned differed from the one in the registration certificate. It was explained that the appellant operated from various locations, all of which were subsequently registered with the Revenue, and the registration certificate was amended to include the disputed address. Given that the invoices were used in relation to the services provided by the appellant, the credit could not be denied. The Tribunal acknowledged that the invoices bore the appellant's name, albeit with a different address. After the appellant amended the registration certificate to include the address in question, the Tribunal found the denial of credit unjustified and set it aside.2. Regarding the disallowed service tax credit of Rs.57,527, the appellant had taken the credit in the name of 'M/s. Shelters' with the appellant's address provided. The appellant had entered into an agreement with Citibank to use the brand name 'Shelters,' and the telephones were registered under that name. The appellant argued that the services were utilized in connection with the services they provided, thus justifying the credit. However, the Revenue contended that the invoices were in the name of 'M/s. Shelter' without mentioning the appellant's name, thereby rendering the credit unavailable. The Tribunal upheld the Revenue's argument, stating that since the duty paying documents were not in the appellant's name, they were not entitled to the credit. Consequently, the denial of this credit was upheld, and the impugned order was modified accordingly.