TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (5) TMI 84
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ued by IAL on security deposit and submission of bank guarantee. The Appellant paid to the IAL for cargo space booked by them. It is stated that IAL wanted the appellant to pay service tax separately. The appellant submits that they paid such service tax against receipts issued by IAL. During the period 1-4-2005 to 30-9-2005 the appellant took Cenvat credit of such service tax paid to IAL on the basis of photocopies of receipts issued by IAL and utilized it for payment of service tax on space resold by them to retail customers. Revenue was of the view that such Cenvat Credits were taken without having documents specified in Rule 9(1) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and hence were unauthorized credit. Revenue issued a notice dated 14-11-2006 fo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l issue which can be raised at any stage of the proceeding. 5. The Counsel submits that the appellants produced proof of payment of service tax on input service in the form of following documents: (a) Photocopies of receipts issued by IAL for payment towards service tax paid by the appellant to IAL; (b) Certificate from IAL showing the amounts collected by IAL from the appellants, indicating cheque number and date issued by appellant towards service tax, Service tax Registration number of IAL and certifying that the impugned service tax amounts were deposited with the service tax authorities. (c) Certificate from Centurion Bank the banker of the appella....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sp; Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. v. CCE - 2011 (274) E.L.T. 359 (Tri.-Del.) (d) Vardhan Acrylics Ltd. v. CCE - 2006 (204) E.L.T. 321 (Tri.) (e) Sarbi Petroleum and Chemicals Ltd. v. CCE - 2005 (192) E.L.T. 468 (Tri.) 8. The ld. AR for Revenue submits that the appellants had accepted that the service rendered by them was taxable. They paid service tax on such services and the customers to whom they had provided service would have taken Cenvat credit of the tax so paid by them. After having not disputed the tax liability during the relevant time they cannot dispute such liability for such past periods in this proceeding which is on a different issue. He points out that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... If there is a conclusion that the service was being provided by IAL what was the value of service provided by IAL? Was it the value at which space was 'sold' to the appellant or the value at which space was 'sold' to the ultimate customer? (d) Did IAL issue any invoice to the ultimate customer showing the value of service and service tax paid on it? Did the appellant issue invoice to the ultimate Customer showing the value of service, its classification and service tax paid on the service? (e) Did the ultimate customer take Cenvat credit on any invoice raised by the IAL or on invoice raised by the Appellant? (f) Was the activity carried out by the appell....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hich this type of questions do not arise and it is easy to apply the proviso to Rule 9(2) of the said rules. Input services are on a different footing altogether. In our opinion it is not a case of just ascertaining whether the tax amount has been deposited in the treasury by looking at the bank statements and then allowing credit to any person who stakes claim for credit of the tax so deposited. 13. In view of the above discussion and in view of the provisions in Rule 9(1) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, we hold that the appellant is not entitled to the credit in question. 14. Now one question to be examined is whether extended period of time can be invoked for demanding the credits improperly taken. We are of the view that t....