M\/s POBC (division of Patel Integrated Logistics Ltd.) Versus Commissioner of CGST, Mumbai West
Service Tax
2019 (2) TMI 578 – CESTAT MUMBAI – TMI
CESTAT MUMBAI – AT
Dated:- 4-1-2019
Appeal No. ST\/87276\/2018 – A\/85093\/2019
Service Tax
DR. D.M. MISRA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
\nShri Archit Agarwal, C.A. for Appellant
\nShri S.B. Mane, AC (AR) for Respondent
\nORDER
\nPer: Dr. D.M. Misra
\nThis is an appeal filed against Order-in-Appeal No. V2(A)ST-II\/539\/2016-17 dated 22.03.2018 passed by the Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise (Appeals), Navi Mumbai.
\n2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in providing taxable output services under the category of 'Transport of Goods by Air' and 'Business Support Service'. During the relevant period from April, 2006 to July, 2008, they availed CENVAT Credit amounting to Rs. 23,68,433\/- on the Service Tax paid on the input services namely Transport of Goods by Air. Alleging that the appellant had wrong<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n s not registered as an ISD during the relevant period. It is his contention that the services were received at their Ahmedabad Office and credit was accordingly availed to that extent. Referring to the judgment of this Tribunal in the case of M\/s Biotor Industries Ltd. – 2018 (10) GSTL 33 (Tri-Ahmd) and Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Dashion Ltd. – 2016 (41) STR 884 (Guj.) he has submitted that the credit cannot be denied merely because the Head Office was not registered as an ISD. Further, he has submitted that the amount of Rs. 1,26,019\/- was relating to the invoices issued by Go Air. It is his contention that even though the Service Tax Registration number was not mentioned in the said invoices, but there was no dispute on the facts that the input service was received by them and utilized in providing the taxable output service. It is his contention that merely because the registration number of the service provider was not mentioned in <\/p>\n = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n and utilization of the input services, the matter needs to be remanded to the adjudicating authority. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" M\/s POBC (division of Patel Integrated Logistics Ltd.) Versus Commissioner of CGST, Mumbai WestService Tax2019 (2) TMI 578 – CESTAT MUMBAI – TMICESTAT MUMBAI – ATDated:- 4-1-2019Appeal No. ST\/87276\/2018 – A\/85093\/2019Service TaxDR. D.M. MISRA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Shri Archit Agarwal, C.A. for Appellant Shri S.B. Mane, AC (AR) for Respondent ORDER Per: Dr. D.M. Misra This … Continue reading “M\/s POBC (division of Patel Integrated Logistics Ltd.) Versus Commissioner of CGST, Mumbai West”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-16699","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16699","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=16699"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16699\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=16699"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=16699"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=16699"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n5. I find that the CENVAT Credit of Rs. 23,68,433\/- has been denied to the appellant on the input invoices issued by Spice Jet, Go Air and Kingfisher Airlines on various grounds, namely:-
\n(i) Rs. 7,84,288\/- was denied on the input invoices issued by Spice Jet for the invoices issued in the name of Head Office, which was not registered as an ISD.
\n(ii) Rs. 1,26,019\/- on the invoices of Go Air where the Service Tax registration number is not mentioned.
\n(iii) Rs. 14,58,116\/- was denied on the invoices of Kingfisher Airlines showing that Service Tax payment has not been reflected in the invoices.
\n5. I find that the issue of denial of CENVAT Credit on invoices issued in the name of Head Office, but received and used in the local office, when Head Office is not registered, is no more res integra and settled by various judgments of this Tribunal including M\/s Biotor Industries Ltd. (supr<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n