2009 (1) TMI 145 - AT - Service Tax

Availment of CENVAT credit by the appellant of the service tax paid by them as receiver of GTA services on the basis of supplementary invoice and invoices in which the registration number of the service provider was not mentioned - in Rule 9(2) registration number of the provider of service is not essential for availment of credit - appellants have received the transport services and the same have been used in or in relation to manufacture of their final products and service tax has actually been paid would be sufficient for availment of credit

Summary

Issues involved:
Availment of CENVAT credit on service tax paid by appellant as receiver of GTA services based on supplementary invoices and invoices without service provider's registration number.

Analysis:
The issue in this appeal revolves around the appellant's availment of CENVAT credit on service tax paid for GTA services, where the registration number of the service provider was missing from the invoices. An amount of Rs. 95,632/- was demanded as irregular service tax credit, along with a penalty of Rs. 10,000/-. The appellant's representative argued that some invoices lacked the service tax amount, leading to supplementary invoices being issued later, but the credit was disallowed due to missing service tax details. It was contended that the CENVAT Credit Rules do not explicitly allow for supplementary invoices in the case of input services, unlike for manufacturers or dealers. However, the appellant cited Rule 9(2) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, emphasizing that the absence of certain particulars in documents should not lead to credit denial if payment details are present.

The Tribunal noted that lower authorities failed to consider Rule 9, and the Commissioner (Appeals) did not address whether the services were used in or in relation to manufacturing. The Commissioner focused on one bill with a missing registration number, deeming it crucial under Rule 9(2). However, the Tribunal clarified that while the name and address of the service provider are essential, the registration number is not mandatory as per Rule 9(2). It highlighted past Tribunal decisions emphasizing substantive compliance with the law, indicating that proof of receiving transport services used in manufacturing, with paid service tax, suffices. Consequently, the matter was remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a fresh decision, allowing the appellant to present their case anew.

This judgment underscores the importance of substantive compliance with tax laws, especially regarding CENVAT credit rules and the interpretation of mandatory requirements for invoices and supplementary invoices. The Tribunal's decision to remand the case for reconsideration by the Commissioner (Appeals) signifies a fair opportunity for the appellant to address the issues raised and potentially secure the disputed CENVAT credit on GTA services.