2014 (2) TMI 97 - AT - Service Tax

Denial of benefit of Cenvat credit - Service Tax paid by way of supplementary invoice Held that - Rule 9(1) (f) specifies an invoice, a bill or challans issued by the provider of invoices, service documents on which credit can be availed - The supplementary invoices as also invoice are valid for the purpose of availment of credit - the provision of Rule 9(1) (b) debars taking of credit if supplementary invoices are issued by manufacturer or importer on account of duty having become recoverable, on account of any levy or short-levy by reasons of fraud, collusion, or any wilful mis-statement or suppression of facts etc. Relying upon JSW Steel Ltd. Vs. CCE, Salem 2008 (9) TMI 74 - CESTAT, CHENNAI Pre-deposits waived till the disposal Stay granted.

Summary

Issues:
1. Denial of Cenvat credit of Service Tax paid by the service provider through supplementary invoices.
2. Interpretation of Rule 9(1)(f) regarding specified documents for availing credit.
3. Applicability of Rule 9(1)(b) in case of supplementary invoices issued by the service provider.
4. Pre-deposit of duty and penalty during the pendency of the appeal.

Analysis:
1. The judgment addressed the denial of Cenvat credit of Service Tax paid by the service provider using supplementary invoices. The lower authorities had rejected the credit, citing that supplementary invoices were not specified documents under the rules for filing the credit. However, the Tribunal found that Rule 9(1)(f) includes invoices, bills, or challans issued by the service provider as valid documents for availing credit. The Tribunal noted that the denial was based on the service provider's alleged suppression or misstatement, but previous decisions clarified that such allegations do not apply to service tax paid under supplementary invoices.

2. Regarding the interpretation of Rule 9(1)(f) and specified documents, the Tribunal emphasized that supplementary invoices, along with regular invoices, are acceptable for claiming credit. The judgment referred to previous decisions like JSW Steel Ltd. Vs. CCE, Salem and L.G. Balakrishnan & Bros Ltd. V. CCE, Trichy to support this interpretation. The Tribunal highlighted that the specified documents under Rule 9(1)(f) cover various types of documents issued by the service provider, allowing the applicant to avail Cenvat credit.

3. The Tribunal discussed the applicability of Rule 9(1)(b) in the context of supplementary invoices issued by the service provider. Rule 9(1)(b) restricts credit if supplementary invoices are issued due to duty becoming recoverable because of fraud, collusion, misstatement, or suppression of facts. However, the Tribunal clarified that this rule does not apply to service tax paid under supplementary invoices, even if there are allegations of suppression by the service provider. The judgment cited previous decisions to support this interpretation, ensuring that the applicant could claim credit for the service tax paid.

4. Finally, the Tribunal addressed the issue of pre-deposit of duty and penalty during the appeal process. Considering that the matter was prima facie in favor of the applicant based on previous decisions and interpretations of the rules, the Tribunal waived the condition of pre-deposit and stayed the recovery of duty and penalty during the appeal's pendency. This decision aimed to provide relief to the applicant and prevent undue financial burden during the legal proceedings.