2017 (3) TMI 354 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - denial on the ground that invoices issued by service provider do not contain STP code of the service provider - Held that - not only is the input service, namely, Banking and Other Financial Services for FOREX, an eligible input service for the purposes of Rule 2(l), also the availment of the said credit on the strength of computer generated service issued by the bank is very much in order - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
- Disputed credit of ?2,40,101/- for Banking and Other Financial Services
- Disallowed input service credit of ?7,416/-
- Rejection of refund of credits

Analysis:
- Issue 1 - Disputed Credit of ?2,40,101/- for Banking and Other Financial Services:
- The appellant contested the rejection of credit under Section 35F of Central Excise Act, 1944. The appellant argued that the amount was debited from the cenvat credit account in June 2014, well before the notice was issued. The appellant relied on a previous favorable decision by CESTAT Chennai in a similar case. The tribunal found that the banking and financial services availed were eligible as per Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The tribunal held that the demand of ?2,40,101/- could not be sustained and set it aside, allowing the appeal with consequential benefits.

- Issue 2 - Disallowed Input Service Credit of ?7,416/-:
- The appellant did not contest the disallowance of the input service credit of ?7,416/-. This amount was part of the refund credits under consideration. No further arguments were made regarding this specific credit.

- Issue 3 - Rejection of Refund of Credits:
- The rejection of the refund of credits amounting to ?2,40,101/- and ?7,416/- was connected to the disputed credits discussed above. The tribunal remanded the matter back to the original authority for reevaluation in light of the decision on the eligibility of banking and financial services for FOREX. The tribunal directed the authority to complete the reevaluation within three months, providing the appellant with a reasonable opportunity to present their case.

In conclusion, the tribunal allowed Appeal No. E/41549/2015 concerning the disputed credit of ?2,40,101/- for Banking and Other Financial Services, setting aside the demand. Appeal No. E/41550/2015, related to the rejection of refund credits, was remanded for further consideration based on the tribunal's findings on the eligibility of the services in question.