2024 (8) TMI 203 - AT - Service Tax

CENVAT credit dispute remanded for proper documentary evidence submission after invoice address discrepancies found

CESTAT NEW DELHI ruled on a CENVAT credit dispute where the appellant availed credit based on invoices not addressed to their registered premises. The ... CENVAT Credit - availing credit on the strength of invoices which were not addressed to their registered premises - HELD THAT:- The adjudicating authority in the impugned order has observed that the value taken in the reconciliation chart submitted by the appellant is not in accordance with the values indicated in the show cause notice. It has also been observed that the appellant has not submitted any documentary evidence for verification or in support of the value shown in the reconciliation chart submitted by them. In the absence of any corroborative documentary evidence, the adjudicating authority has confirmed this demand. It is a fact on record that the appellant submitted a reconciliation chart before the adjudicating authority, but did not submit any corroborative evidence to substantiate their claim, as has been clearly recorded in the impugned order. It would be appropriate to remand the matter back to the original authority, giving an opportunity to the appellant to submit documentary evidences such as invoices issued during the period, along with copies of bank statement showing the advances received during that period, ledgers of the parties, copies of challans for service tax payment during the period etc. - Appeal allowed by way of remand. Issues:Demand of Service Tax amounting to Rs. 21,82,435/- along with penalties imposed on the appellant.Analysis:1. The appellant, engaged in operating airlines and providing various services, filed an appeal against the Order-in-Original confirming a service tax demand of Rs. 21,82,435/-. The department alleged irregular CENVAT credit availment and short payment of service tax. The Commissioner confirmed the demand but dropped the CENVAT credit issue. The appellant contended they paid taxes correctly based on advances received and prior service periods.2. The appellant's Chartered Accountant argued that the appellant paid service tax on advances received, adjusting them when billing was done. They paid taxes on amounts received before 01 April 2011, when service tax was payable on receipt basis. The ST-3 returns showed the appellant paid tax on amounts higher than billed. The differences were due to advances received and payments made in the same month.3. The appellant's representative cited cases where disclosure in ST-3 returns prevented extended limitation periods. They argued that the show cause notice lacked grounds for invoking a larger period for the alleged short payment of tax. The notice was time-barred as the return was filed within the normal limitation period.4. The appellant argued against penalties, stating no suppression or fraud occurred. They contended that if the tax demand was not sustainable, penalties under Sections 77 and 78 could not be levied. The department reiterated the findings, stating the appellant did not provide documentary evidence supporting their claims.5. The Tribunal noted the absence of corroborative evidence from the appellant to substantiate their claims. They decided to remand the matter back to the original authority for the appellant to submit documentary evidence like invoices, bank statements, ledgers, and challans for service tax payments. The adjudicating authority was directed to consider these documents for a fresh adjudication.6. The impugned order was set aside to the limited extent mentioned, and the appeal was allowed by way of remand, providing the appellant an opportunity to submit the necessary documentary evidence for reconsideration.This detailed analysis covers the issues involved in the legal judgment comprehensively, highlighting the arguments presented by both parties and the Tribunal's decision to remand the matter for further consideration based on the submission of documentary evidence.