2016 (3) TMI 1251 - AT - Service Tax

CENVAT credit - duty paying invoices - appellant had taken Credit on the basis of Advice of Transfer Debit issued by the Central Telephone Store Department of the appellant, supported by Xerox copies of the original invoices - Held that - the issue is no more res-integra, and has been decided in the case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Erode Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Salem 2013 (12) TMI 742 - CESTAT CHENNAI , where it was held that considering the commercial practice which was necessary for efficient procuring the equipment in question, this procedural lapse cannot be considered as a reason to deny Cenvat credit involved. The re-conciliation is not done before the Court below - the adjudicating authority directed to pass a fresh order by following the decision of this Tribunal in the case of M/s B. S. N. L. Vs. CCE - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues: Appeal against service tax demand, penalty imposition under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994, penalty under Rule 15 (4) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, and discrepancy in documentary evidence.

Analysis:

1. The appellant, M/s B. S. N. L., challenged an Order-in-Appeal rejecting their appeal against a service tax demand, interest confirmation, and penalty imposition under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994, and Rule 15 (4) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The appellant had taken Cenvat Credit based on an 'Advice of Transfer Debit' supported by Xerox copies of original invoices.

2. The Tribunal noted that a similar issue had been previously decided in the case of M/s B. S. N. L. Vs. CCE, where it was held that although the appellant had not strictly complied with the provisions of the Cenvat Credit Rules, the existence and genuineness of the original invoices were not disputed. The duty had been paid, and the equipment in question had been used at the sites where credits were taken. Therefore, the Tribunal allowed the Cenvat credit and rejected the imposition of penalties.

3. The Tribunal further referred to another decision in Final Order No.52128-52131/2014, following the same reasoning as the earlier case.

4. The Revenue pointed out a discrepancy in the documentary evidence provided by the appellants regarding the Cenvat credit amount of &8377; 21,93,606. The reconciliation was not done before the lower court, leading to the direction for a fresh order by the adjudicating authority. The Tribunal allowed the appeal by way of remand, instructing the appellant to appear before the adjudicating authority with supporting documents within 60 days and seek an opportunity for a hearing.

5. In conclusion, the appeal was allowed by way of remand, emphasizing the need for proper reconciliation and compliance with the Tribunal's previous decisions in similar cases.