Cenvat Credit cannot be denied due to Non-Mentioning of Service Tax Registration: CESTAT [Read Order]

The Ahmedabad Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) has held that cenvat credit cannot be denied for the non-mentioning of service tax registration in the invoice.

The two-member bench of Ramesh Nair ( Judicial Member ) and C. L. Mahar ( Technical Member ) has observed that the entire basis for the denial of cenvat credit is wrong and the credit was wrongly denied. It was found that the only discrepancy in the invoice is that the service provider has not mentioned the service tax registration, which is merely a procedural lapse, particularly when there is no case in which the service tax on such an invoice was not paid by the service provider.

Sai Consulting Engineers Pvt Ltd, the appellant assessee is primarily involved in providing consulting engineering services. The appellant operated as a sub- or associate consultant for several foreign-based consulting engineering firms, including M/s. Louis Berger, M/s Frischmann Prabhu ( India ) Pvt Ltd, M/s Dorch Consultant (India) Pvt Ltd, and M/s. Renardet S.A. Ingenieurs.

The prime consultants have discharged their service tax on total consultancy charges, including the consultancy fees paid to the appellant. The appellant has not paid the service tax on the consulting engineer service provided by them as a subcontractor or associate consultant.

The show cause notice was issued for the period FY 2005–2006 and FY 2006–2007, proposing a demand of Rs. 30,71,200/- along with interest and an equal penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. Another show cause notice was issued for the period April 2007 to March 2008, proposing the demand of Rs. 14,34,845/- along with interest and penalty under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994.

On adjudication, the demands proposed under the show cause notice have been confirmed, along with interest and penalties. The appellant filed appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals), who rejected the appeal.

The assessee contended that the adjudicating authority has wrongly denied the credit by invoking the wrong rule, i.e., Rule 9 (1)(g) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, read with Rule 4 A (ii) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994.

The appellant has received the service directly from the service provider; therefore, invoking the provision of the input service distributor is incorrect, and on that basis alone, the order is incorrect, denying the CENVAT credit. Except for the non-mention of the registration number of the service provider, there is no discrepancy in the input service invoice and credit cannot be denied.

While allowing the appeal, the CESTAT held that the lower authorities had wrongly denied the cenvat credit and set aside the same. Sanjay Singhal appeared for the appellant and P Ganesan appeared for the respondent.

To Read the full text of the Order CLICK HERE

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates