2014 (7) TMI 70 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT Credit - duty paying documents - Whether the appellant is entitled to the credit availed on the ground that the registration number of the service provider was not indicated on the invoices. - Held that - It is the fact on record that during the adjudication proceedings, the appellant had provided to the department, the registration number of the service providers. Therefore, the adjudicating authority could have easily verified whether these service providers were registered with the department at the relevant time and whether they had discharged the service tax liability in accordance with the law. He has unnecessarily chosen to raise the level of litigation by denying the credit as if it is Tribunal s job to get verification done. In these circumstances, we are of the view that the matter has to be remanded back to the adjudicating authority for verification of the registration numbers declared by the appellant in respect of the service providers and also for verifying whether the service tax indicated in the invoices was paid to the exchequer or not - Matter remanded back - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against Order-in-Original confirming duty demand, interest liability, and penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 based on invalid/incomplete documents for credit availed. Appellant's contention regarding missing registration numbers on service provider invoices and reliance on ISD invoices. Revenue's argument on registration numbers provided by appellant pertaining to a subsequent period.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to an appeal and stay petition challenging Order-in-Original No. 171/MAK/(171)/Commr/RGD/13-14 confirming a duty demand, interest liability, and penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The impugned order upheld a duty demand of Rs. 66,55,823/- due to the appellant taking credit based on invalid/incomplete documents. The appellant argued that the credit was taken based on ISD invoices issued by the Head Office, which contained the necessary details. Additionally, during adjudication, the appellant provided a list of service providers' registration numbers for verification. The Revenue contended that the registration numbers provided pertained to a subsequent period, casting doubt on the service providers' registration status during the relevant period.

The Tribunal, after considering both parties' submissions, concluded that the appeal could be disposed of without pre-deposit. The central issue revolved around whether the appellant was entitled to credit despite the missing registration numbers on service provider invoices. The Tribunal noted that the appellant had provided registration numbers during adjudication, suggesting the possibility of verification by the department. Criticizing the adjudicating authority for not conducting this verification and unnecessarily escalating the litigation, the Tribunal remanded the matter for verification of the registration numbers and service tax payments by the service providers. Consequently, the appeal was allowed by way of remand, and the stay petition and application for early hearing were also disposed of.

In summary, the judgment highlights the importance of verifying registration numbers and service tax payments by service providers before denying credit based on technical lapses. The Tribunal emphasized the need for thorough verification by the department and remanded the matter for further examination, underscoring the substantive benefit of credit for the appellant.