Subscribe to the Bombay Chartered Accountant Journal Subscribe Now!

January 2014

2013 TIOL 1727 CESTAT Mum, Atlas Documentary Facilitators Co Pvt. Ltd vs. CST, Mumbai

By Puloma Dalal
Jayesh Gogri
Mandar Telang Chartered Accountants
Reading Time 2 mins
fiogf49gjkf0d
CENVAT credit cannot be denied if claimed on the basis of debit notes capturing the details in annexure to the said debit note. Further denial of CENVAT credit on the basis of all the premises from where taxable services were provided, make the provisions of centralised registration redundant.

Facts:
The Appellant provided “Business Auxiliary Services” (BAS) and had centralised registration. It provided BAS services to banks and therefore was allotted part of the bank premises and the bank charged rent plus service tax to them. The bank issued debit notes on the Appellant and all the details as stipulated under Rule 4A of the Service Tax Rules, 2004 and Rule 9 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 were provided in the annexure to the debit notes issued by the bank. The Appellant availed the credit based on the said debit notes. CENVAT credit was denied on the grounds that all the details were not mentioned on the debit note but in the annexure and the annexure cannot be treated as CENVAT document. Further that the Appellant had not registered bank premises from where the taxable service was provided.

Held:
The details as required under the provisions of law for claiming the CENVAT credit were provided and also the provisions do not lay down any particular format for the CENVAT claiming documents thus the CENVAT cannot be denied if all the details are provided as required under the law. The Appellant had obtained centralised registration and thus seeking registration of all the premises from which it provides taxable service will make the Rule 4B of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 granting centralized registration redundant and therefore the CENVAT credit cannot be denied on the grounds as implied by the department.

You May Also Like