CESTAT allows CENVAT credit on services despite invoice discrepancies, denies credit on meal vouchers and staff accommodation

The CESTAT New Delhi partially allowed the appeal regarding CENVAT credit disputes. The tribunal upheld denial of credit on meal vouchers (welfare activity) and staff accommodation (employee perquisites not integrally connected to business). However, it allowed credit on inadmissible documents where services were actually received and service tax paid, treating invoice discrepancies as procedural errors. The tribunal set aside demands under Rule 6(3)(i) where proportionate credit was reversed for exempt services. Following SC precedent in Northern Operating Systems, demands for manpower recruitment services were confirmed only for normal period. Interest was upheld as compensatory, but penalties under Sections 76-78 were set aside for lack of malafide intention.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Availment of CENVAT credit on certain input services.
2. Availment of CENVAT credit on inadmissible documents.
3. Non-payment of amount u/r 6(3)(i) of CENVAT Credit Rules.
4. Non-payment of service tax on manpower recruitment or supply agency services.

Summary of Judgment:

1. Availment of CENVAT Credit on Certain Input Services:
The Tribunal examined the definitions of "input service" across different periods and noted that input services must be used by the service provider for providing output services. The Tribunal found that meal vouchers provided to employees prior to 01.04.2011 were welfare activities and not input services. Post 01.04.2011, such services were explicitly excluded. Similarly, accommodation provided to staff was for welfare and not integrally connected to business activities, thus not qualifying as input services. The Tribunal upheld the denial of CENVAT credit on these grounds.

2. Availment of CENVAT Credit on Inadmissible Documents:
The Tribunal noted that Rule 9(2) of the Credit Rules allows CENVAT credit if certain critical details are present on the invoice, even if all particulars are not mentioned. The Tribunal found that the appellant had received the services and borne the service tax. Therefore, it held that the Commissioner erred in disallowing credit merely due to the absence of serial numbers on invoices.

3. Non-payment of Amount u/r 6(3)(i) of CENVAT Credit Rules:
The Tribunal found that the appellant had reversed the proportionate credit for services provided in Jammu and Kashmir before the issuance of the show cause notice. It held that when proportionate credit is reversed, the department cannot impose liability under Rule 6(3)(i) of the Credit Rules. The Tribunal set aside the demand on this issue.

4. Non-payment of Service Tax on Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency Services:
The Tribunal noted that the appellant had hired foreign employees who were on its payroll, fulfilling all statutory requirements. The Tribunal acknowledged the Supreme Court's decision in CCE vs. Northern Operating System, which clarified that such secondment arrangements are liable for service tax. However, it held that the extended period of limitation could not be invoked as there was no malafide intention or suppression by the appellant. The demand was upheld only for the normal period.

Interest and Penalties:
The Tribunal upheld the demand for interest, citing the Supreme Court judgment in M/s Pratibha Processors vs Union of India, which held that interest is compensatory. However, it set aside the penalties imposed under Sections 76, 77, and 78, as the department failed to establish malafide intention by the appellant.

Conclusion:
The impugned order was modified to set aside the following:
1. CENVAT Credit availed on inadmissible documents.
2. Proportionate Credit under Rule 6(3)(i) of CENVAT Credit Rules, already reversed before the show cause notice.
3. Demand for the extended period.
4. Penalties imposed.

The remaining findings of the impugned order were upheld, and the appeal was partially allowed.

---