2018 (6) TMI 675 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI – CENVAT credit – duty paying invoices – invoices did not contain the mandatory details – demand of tax with interest and penalty – Held that:- Nothing is brought out from the records to show that the appellant has not availed the services or has not paid the impugned service tax amounts. The only allegation is that the required details are not reflecting from the invoices – The invoice having been supplied by the service provider, the appellant cannot be saddled with suppression of facts with intent to evade payment of service tax on this allegation.
–
There is no evidence necessary to establish that the appellant has suppressed facts with intent to evade payment of service tax. Therefore, the equal penalty imposed cannot sustain – service tax demand with interest upheld – appeal allowed in part. – Appeal No. ST/40939/2018 – Final Order No. 41801 / 2018 – Dated:- 14-6-2018 – Hon ble Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member ( Judicial ) Sh. S.K.Venugo
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
e proper, only for the limited extent of buying peace with the department as well as not to go into further litigations, the appellant is confining the contest to the penalty imposed. He submitted that the appellant had availed the services of real estate agent for purchase of land from real estate agent and credit was availed to the tune of ₹ 60,550/- in this regard. Further, service was received for settling up dispute for which an amount of ₹ 51,500/- was availed as credit. For the mere reason that the invoices did not contain the necessary particulars of the service provider, the department has sought to deny the credit. He submitted that the appellant had furnished the input service distributor invoices as well as the details of the credit availed which has not been considered by the authorities below. He adverted to proviso to Rule 9(2) and argued that in case of invoices not containing necessary particulars, the Assistant / Deputy Commissioner if satisfied whether th
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
th regard to the eligibility of credit, has then submitted that they are confining their contest to the penalty imposed. On perusal of the show cause notice, it is seen that the only allegation raised is that the invoices issued by the service provider did not contain necessary details. It is also seen from the records that the Range Officer, Palayamkottai was called for to scrutinize and report about the said two invoices. Nothing is brought out from the records to show that the appellant has not availed the services or has not paid the impugned service tax amounts. The only allegation is that the required details are not reflecting from the invoices. The invoice having been supplied by the service provider, the appellant cannot be saddled with suppression of facts with intent to evade payment of service tax on this allegation. I find that there is no evidence necessary to establish that the appellant has suppressed facts with intent to evade payment of service tax. Therefore, the equ
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =