2015 (5) TMI 973 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT Credit - debit notes - whether appellant is entitled to the Cenvat credit of the service tax paid in respect of the services covered by debit notes - Various service - Held that - Law requires evidence to show provision of service, value thereof, identity of provider and recipient thereof and service tax charged to protect interest of Revenue. Therefore, it would be proper for the Adjudicating authority to enquire from the concerns which had issued debit notes/letter heads, as to whether the particulars mentioned therein are correct and provision of service covered by those debit notes/letter heads were really provided to the appellant. Upon conduct of enquiry, if the authority is satisfied as to genuineness of the debit note and identity of the parties, the form of invoice shall not be material but substance thereof shall govern the claim. This enquiry shall provide immunity to Revenue to prevent double claim of Cenvat credit one on the basis debit notes/letter heads and subsequently on the basis of invoices if any - CENVAT Credit is allowed - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Entitlement to Cenvat credit based on debit notes issued by service providers.
2. Eligibility for Cenvat credit on various services used for business purposes.
3. Validity of debit notes as invoices for claiming Cenvat credit.
4. Requirement of evidence for service provision, value, and tax charged.
5. Cooperation with authority for conducting enquiry.
6. Cenvat credit eligibility for specific services like windmill maintenance, taxi, air ticket, pest control, insurance, and vehicles.

Analysis:
1. The appellant claimed entitlement to Cenvat credit based on debit notes issued by service providers, arguing that they serve as valid invoices in the absence of prescribed law. However, Revenue rejected this claim, leading to a dispute.

2. The issue of eligibility for Cenvat credit on various services such as windmill maintenance, taxi, authorized service station, pest control, air ticket, and insurance services was raised. The appellant asserted that these services were utilized for business purposes, justifying the credit.

3. Revenue objected to the validity of debit notes as invoices, citing the lack of prescribed procedures for accepting them as valid documents. The law requires specific details on invoices, including service tax paid, service description, provider's registration status, and parties' addresses for claiming Cenvat credit.

4. The judgment emphasized the necessity of evidence to demonstrate service provision, value, tax charged, and parties involved to safeguard Revenue's interests. The Adjudicating authority was directed to conduct an enquiry with the concerns issuing debit notes to verify the genuineness of the provided services and parties' identities.

5. The appellant was instructed to cooperate with the authority by providing details of service providers and tax amounts paid through debit notes for the enquiry. This cooperation was crucial for establishing the legitimacy of the claimed Cenvat credit.

6. Specific services like windmill maintenance, pest control, insurance, and vehicles used in the business were deemed eligible for Cenvat credit due to their direct relevance to business operations. However, services like taxi and air ticket, not directly attributable to output or output service, were denied credit.

7. The judgment partially allowed the appeal and remanded the issue of invoice validity to the Adjudicating authority for further examination and appropriate decision based on facts and law presented during the hearing.