2014 (5) TMI 307 - AT - Service Tax

CENVAT Credit - respondent has availed Cenvat credit on the basis of debit notes which did not contain Service Tax registration number and sl. no. of bill of invoices - Held that - It is not correct to say that the credit has been taken only on the basis of debit notes. According to the observations of learned Commissioner, debit notes were raised for recovery, value of services and for recovering of Service Tax, the service provider has raised a separate bill. In the bill, the registration number of the service provider, the amount of Service Tax paid and to whom the service was provided are available. He has taken a view that these details are sufficient and therefore credit is admissible. According to proviso to Rule 9(2) of Cenvat Credit Rules, credit can be allowed even if the document does not contain all the particulars but contains the details of Service Tax payable, description of taxable service, value of service, registration number of the person issuing the invoice, name and address of the factory. The rule also provides that if the services on which credit has been taken have been received and accounted for, credit can be allowed. Further, the rule also does not bar the availment of credit on the basis of an invoice, bill or challan. In this case as observed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals), no doubt the procedure adopted by the service provider is somewhat abnormal. But the fact remains that debit notes issued provides the value of service and separate bill has been raised for payment of Service Tax. The bill contains the details which are specified in the proviso to Rule 9(2) as mentioned above. Since the documents on the basis of which credit has been taken contain essential details which are required as per the proviso to Rule 9(2) and there if no observation that service has not been received or Service Tax was not paid by the provider of service, the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) cannot be found fault with - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Availment of Cenvat credit on the basis of debit notes without necessary details.
2. Eligibility of the respondent for the credit based on subsequent billing for Service Tax.
3. Interpretation of Rule 9(2) of Cenvat Credit Rules regarding admissibility of credit.

Analysis:
1. The case involved the respondent, engaged in sugar manufacturing, availing Cenvat credit based on debit notes lacking Service Tax registration number and invoice details. The original authority confirmed the Service Tax demand and imposed a penalty. On appeal, the Commissioner allowed the credit, noting subsequent billing for Service Tax by the service provider. The Revenue appealed this decision.

2. The learned DR argued that credit based on debit notes, not listed in Cenvat Credit Rules, was improper due to missing details. However, the Commissioner found the subsequent billing with necessary particulars sufficient for credit admissibility.

3. The Tribunal analyzed Rule 9(2), which allows credit even if documents lack certain particulars but contain Service Tax details, service description, value, and provider's registration. The rule does not prohibit credit based on invoices, bills, or challans. Despite the unconventional recovery method, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision as the documents contained essential details as per Rule 9(2), and there was no evidence of non-receipt of service or non-payment of Service Tax by the provider. The appeal by the Revenue was dismissed for lacking merit.

This judgment clarifies the interpretation of Cenvat Credit Rules, emphasizing that essential details in documents supporting credit availment are crucial for admissibility, even if the recovery method is unconventional.