2012 (5) TMI 352 - AT - Service Tax

Cenvat credit - duty paying documents - debit note cum bills - duplicate copies of invoice - department was of the view that these documents are not the valid documents for availing Cenvat credit Held that - documents called debit notes cum bills contain all the information which is required to be mentioned in the invoices and except for the name of the document, there is no difference between the debit note cum bill and invoice. The nature and value of the service provided and the service tax paid has been shown in these documents and it is not disputed that the service tax has been paid to the Government, Revenue s appeal is dismissed, cross-objection also stands disposed of

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of availing Cenvat credit based on debit notes cum bills.
2. Interpretation of Rule 9(1) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.
3. Applicability of judgments in similar cases.
4. Time limitation for demanding Cenvat credit.
5. Imposition of penalty under Rule 15 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.

Issue 1: Validity of availing Cenvat credit based on debit notes cum bills:
The respondent, a chemical manufacturer, availed Cenvat credit on service tax paid using debit notes cum bills from a service provider. The Assistant Commissioner disallowed this credit, citing Rule 9(1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The Commissioner (Appeals) reversed this decision, invoking Rule 9(2) and noting that the documents contained all required information. The Tribunal agreed, considering the documents akin to invoices and allowed the credit, emphasizing that the nature and value of services, along with service tax details, were present.

Issue 2: Interpretation of Rule 9(1) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004:
The dispute centered on Rule 9(1) which specifies valid documents for Cenvat credit. The Department argued that only prescribed documents allow credit, referencing past judgments. In contrast, the respondent contended that the debit notes cum bills met Rule 9(1) criteria, supported by the Commissioner (Appeals) and citing Tribunal cases. The Tribunal concurred, emphasizing the sufficiency of information in the documents.

Issue 3: Applicability of judgments in similar cases:
The Department cited precedents like AVIS Electronics Pvt. Ltd. and High Court cases to support its stance on document requirements for Cenvat credit. However, the Tribunal distinguished these cases, noting the specific circumstances and information completeness in the present matter, leading to a different outcome.

Issue 4: Time limitation for demanding Cenvat credit:
The respondent argued that the demand period was time-barred due to the absence of evidence for wilful suppression or contraventions. Additionally, no penalty was imposed due to the absence of mala fide intent. The Tribunal agreed, highlighting the lack of extended period availability for the Department.

Issue 5: Imposition of penalty under Rule 15 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004:
The Assistant Commissioner did not levy a penalty, finding no mala fide intention. The respondent emphasized this point, and the Tribunal upheld the decision, dismissing the Revenue's appeal and cross-objection.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision, allowing the Cenvat credit based on the debit notes cum bills and dismissing the Revenue's appeal. The judgment highlighted the sufficiency of information in the documents, distinguishing past judgments and emphasizing compliance with Rule 9(1) requirements.