Antares Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise (CESTAT Chandigarh)
Summary: The Chandigarh Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal considered whether CENVAT credit could be denied merely because it was not reflected in the ST-3 Returns and was availed beyond the prescribed period of six months or one year. The appeal arose from an order confirming service tax demand against M/s Antares Services Pvt. Ltd. for the period 2014-15 to 2016-17.
The appellants were registered for “Manpower Recruitment/ Supply Agency Service” and “Commercial Training or Coaching Service”, though during the relevant period they provided only Manpower Recruitment/ Supply Agency Service. An audit of their records noticed that ST-3 Returns had not been filed for April 2014. The Department thereafter issued a show-cause notice relying, inter alia, upon data supplied by the Income Tax Department and alleged that service tax of Rs.6,72,669/- was recoverable along with interest. The appellants contended that they possessed sufficient CENVAT credit and had discharged the service tax liability. The Department disputed the availability of such credit on the ground that the credit had been taken on invoices beyond the permissible period.
The appellants submitted that they had availed input services including Renting of Property, CA Services and services from Monster.Com for providing their output services. They contended that service tax had been discharged on the cum-tax value under Section 67(2) of the Finance Act, 1994, resulting, according to them, in excess payment of service tax by Rs.6,781/-. They also relied upon the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 and contended that the demand was based on third-party information.
