2015 (10) TMI 1345 - AT - Central Excise

Denial of CENVAT Credit - Held that - CENVAT Credit in dispute have been availed by the appellant on two invoices issued by their registered office as input service distributor. The Commissioner has not accepted the said invoices in allowing the CENVAT credit on the ground that the supporting documents disclosing the details of services received from the service providers had not been enclosed with the respective input service invoices issued by their registered office as input service distributor. The Ld. Chartered Accountant for the applicant submits that because of the voluminous nature of the supporting documents, only consolidated statements were furnished whereas they are in a position to submit invoices issued by the respective service providers in favour of the registered office. In view of the categorical claim of the appellant, in the interest of justice, we are of the view that the matter be remanded to the adjudicating authority for examination of the supporting documents so as to ascertain whether the appellant are eligible on the invoices issued by their registered office as input service distributor availed CENVAT Credit in January, 2007. In the result, the impugned order is set aside - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
- Availment of CENVAT Credit on input service invoices
- Compliance with Rule 4(a)(2) of Service Tax Rules, 1994
- Denial of CENVAT Credit by Adjudicating Authority
- Request for remand to consider additional evidence

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against an Order-in-Original dated January 14, 2009, regarding the availing of CENVAT Credit on input service invoices by the appellants, who were registered for manufacturing Carbon Black under Chapter 28 of CETA, 1985. The dispute arose when the Adjudicating Authority issued a show cause-cum-demand notice for the recovery of CENVAT Credit, alleging non-compliance with Rule 9 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The Ld. C.A. for the appellants argued that the input service invoices issued by their registered office, acting as an input service distributor, met the requirements under Rule 4(a)(2) of Service Tax Rules, 1994. However, the Adjudicating Authority denied the credit due to missing details of the service providers in the invoices, which the appellants claimed were provided in a consolidated statement due to the voluminous nature of the supporting documents.

The Revenue supported the Adjudicating Authority's decision, emphasizing the lack of evidence as the reason for confirming the demand for CENVAT Credit. After hearing both sides, the Tribunal found that the appellants had availed CENVAT Credit based on invoices issued by their registered office as an input service distributor. The Commissioner had rejected these invoices due to missing details of the services received. The appellants' representative admitted the absence of supporting documents with the invoices but assured the availability of such evidence if required. Consequently, the Tribunal decided to remand the case to the Adjudicating Authority for a fresh examination of the supporting documents to determine the eligibility of the appellants for the CENVAT Credit claimed in January 2007. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed for remand, with both parties granted the opportunity to present additional evidence.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision focused on the need for proper documentation to support the availed CENVAT Credit, highlighting the importance of complying with the rules and providing necessary evidence to substantiate the claims. The case was remanded to allow for a thorough examination of the supporting documents, ensuring a fair assessment of the appellants' eligibility for the credit claimed.