2015 (6) TMI 1136 - AT - Service Tax

CENVAT credit - duty paying documents - grievance of Revenue are that the Bank certificates do not contain any serial number, address of the party and are not in the form of invoice as required under the provisions of Rule 4A of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 - Held that - Manner of preparation of invoice by the service provider is contained in Rule 4A of the Service Tax Rules, 1994. The proviso appended thereto specifies that in case of invoices issued by the banking company, the rigour of the said rule shall not be applicable, inasmuch as, in absence of mention of serial number and address of the service receiver, credit should be allowed - the documents in the present case issued by the bankers are in conformity with the proviso contained in Rule 4A ibid read with Rule 9(2) ibid. With regard to distribution of credit by the head office of appellant, the said office has not availed the Cenvat credit of service tax paid by the bankers, and thus, there was no requirement for obtaining registration certificate as service distributor. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of bank certificates for Cenvat credit.
2. Eligibility for Cenvat benefit as an Input Service Distributor.

Analysis:
1. The first issue revolves around the validity of bank certificates for claiming Cenvat credit. The Revenue contended that the bank certificates did not comply with Rule 4A of the Service Tax Rules, 1994, as they lacked a serial number, party address, and were not in the form of an invoice. However, it was noted that Rule 4A provides an exception for invoices issued by banking companies, where the strict requirements may not apply. The certificates in question were issued by a banking company for taxable services and were found to align with the proviso to Rule 4A. Additionally, Rule 9 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, allows authorities to grant credit even in the absence of certain information if the service receipt is verified and proper accounts are maintained. The documents were deemed compliant with Rule 4A and Rule 9(2), supported by certification from a Chartered Accountant regarding the receipt and accounting of the input service, leading to the conclusion that the credit should not be denied.

2. The second issue concerns the eligibility for Cenvat benefit as an Input Service Distributor. The appellant's central office was not registered with the Department as a distributor, raising concerns about the eligibility for the benefit. However, it was determined that the central office had not availed the Cenvat credit of service tax from the bankers, as confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals). Consequently, there was no necessity for the central office to obtain a registration certificate as a service distributor, as they had not utilized the credit. This finding was supported, and the decision was in agreement with the Commissioner (Appeals).

In conclusion, the Tribunal found no fault in the impugned order, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal. The judgment highlighted the compliance of the bank certificates with relevant rules for claiming Cenvat credit and clarified the central office's position regarding the distribution of credit, ultimately upholding the decision in favor of the appellant.