TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (9) TMI 1092
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the denied broadly on the following grounds: (i) Cenvat credit amounting to Rs.45,38,409/- was denied on the ground that services were provided to different service tax registered unit of the company (ii) Cenvat credit amounting to Rs.13,08,051/- was denied on the ground of non-production of documents. Out of this, the Appellant has accepted already paid an amount of Rs.7,39,082/-. (iii) Cenvat credit amounting to Rs.2,35,946/- was denied on the ground of improper input service documents. 3. Regarding denial of Cenvat credit of 45,38,409/-, the Appellant stated that Cenvat Credit cannot be denied merely on the ground that the services were received at some other units/locations as the entire excise would be revenue neutral. They submitted that Cenvat credit of Rs. 45,38,409/- was availed in respect of input service invoices raised by M/s. Apolo Security & Detective Services and M/s. Laxmi Enterprises (LE Group), which has been denied on the ground that such input services had been used by their different service tax registered units located across India, whereas the credit has been availed by them. They stated that the impugned Security Services and M....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tabulated below - Sl. No. Particulars Amount (Rs.) A. CENVAT Credit denied on the ground that the input documents could not be produced for verification 13,08,051 B. Documents produced for verification before Ld. Commissioner during personal hearing. 4,00,008 C. Further Documents produced for verification during Stay proceeding. 1,72,251 D. Balance Credit 7,35,792 E. Amount paid vide Challan dated 14.02.2012 . 7,39,082 (Excess) / Short Payment made (3,290) 7. The Appellant stated that they have submitted the relevant documents based on which the credit was availed. In respect of the credit pertains to Rs.7,35,792/- they could not produced the relevant documents. Hence, the demand on this count is liable to be set aside. 8. Regarding denial of CENVAT credit of Rs.2,35,946/-, the Appellant stated that the credit has been denied on the sole ground that the input documents were not proper. The break-up details of the credit are as below: Sl. No. Particulars Amount (Rs.) A. Credit availed based on xerox/photocopy of the Invoice 73,947 B. Credit availed on Invoices having no Registration n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....AT credit cannot be denied merely on the ground that the document does not contain all the particulars required to be contained in the invoice when there is no dispute regarding receipt of service. Reliance is placed on the following judicial pronouncements - Kemwell Biopharma Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commr. of C. Ex. & S.T., Ltu, Bangalore [2017 (47) S.T.R. 70 (Tri. - Bang.)](Pg No. 32 to 34) The Tribunal hold,mere non-mentioning ofregistration number of service provider on invoices is only a procedural lapse withregard to duty paying documents, in absence of any evidence of services not havingbeen received or utilized, substantive benefit of credit, not deniable for such procedurallapse. Integra Software Services Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commr. of C. Ex., Puducherry [2017 (48) S.T.R. 137 (Tri. - Chennai)](Pg No. 35 to 42) The Tribunal in this case held that mere non-availability of registration details of service providers on invoice are nothing but procedural lapses and thus consequent refund of unutilized credit on export of services not deniable on aforesaid grounds 11. The Appellant stated that substantial benefit cannot be denied merely on account of p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ied on various grounds, in the impugned order. Out of this, Cenvat credit of Rs.45,38,409/-has been denied on the ground that the services were received at some other units/locations. We find that the Appellant availed this credit in respect of input service invoices raised by Apolo Security & Detective Services and M/s. Laxmi Enterprises (LE Group), which has been denied on the ground that such input services had been used by different service tax registered units located across India whereas the credit has been availed by the Appellant at the Head office. The Appellant stated that the impugned Security Services and Manpower services provided by Apollo and Laxmi Enterprises has been used at various locations as a part of their ongoing business of providing maintenance and repair service from locations across India. We observe that the Head Office is separately registered under the Service Tax vide Registration no. AABCT0704GST014. They have entered a contract with Apolo Security& Detective services for providing security services and Laxmi Enterprises for providing manpower supply services across India. Since the contract has been executed by them, the service provider has raised ....