2018 (3) TMI 1386 - AT - Service Tax

CENVAT credit - duty paying documents - Rule 9 (1) of the CCR 2004 - appellant had availed Cenvat credit of service tax paid on input services received in its head office at Indore. The bills/ invoices were issued by the vendors in the name of Narmada Jhabua Gramin Bank, New Palasia, Indore and the head office distributed the credit through a letter, mentioning therein that the credit to be taken by regional office, Sehore. Held that - on the basis of debit note issued by the head office, the appellant, in this case, had availed the Cenvat benefit. Since as per the proviso appended to Rule 4A (2), debit note cannot be denied as a proper document, the credit should be available to the appellant, subject to fulfilment of the other conditions laid down in sub-rule (2) of the said Rules. Since the appellants submits that the debit note contained all the requisite particulars, as provided under the said rule, the matter should go back to the original authority for verification of the documents and for allowing the Cenvat benefit, if the same are in conformity with the statutory provisions - the original authority should also decide whether penalty can be imposed on the facts and in the circumstances of the present case, especially in view of the fact that the appellant is a banking company and is owned and controlled by the Government Departments. Appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues involved:
- Availment of Cenvat credit on input services by a licensed Banker
- Denial of Cenvat credit by the Department
- Applicability of Rule 9 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and Rule 4A of the Service Tax Rules, 1994
- Validity of the document issued by the head office for availing Cenvat credit
- Exclusion of premium on EDLI Scheme and Premium on DI & CGC from Cenvat credit

Analysis:
The appeal revolves around the denial of Cenvat credit to a licensed Banker for availing service tax paid on input services. The Department observed that the appellant had utilized Cenvat credit based on a letter issued by the head office, which was not the prescribed document for availing Cenvat credit as per Rule 9 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and Rule 4A of the Service Tax Rules, 1994. Consequently, the Department denied the Cenvat credit and imposed a penalty equal to the denied amount.

The appellant argued that the document issued by the head office contained the requisite particulars as per the proviso appended to Rule 4A of the Service Tax Rules, 1994, and hence, the Cenvat credit should not be denied. Additionally, the appellant contended that the Cenvat credit taken on premium of EDLI Scheme and Premium of DI & CGC should not be denied as they fall under excluded categories.

Upon examination, the Tribunal found that the debit note issued by the head office could not be denied as a proper document for availing Cenvat credit, as per the proviso appended to Rule 4A. The Tribunal directed the matter to be remanded to the original authority for verification of documents and allowing the Cenvat benefit if statutory provisions were met. The original authority was instructed to consider relevant judgments, including those of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court and previous Tribunal decisions, to determine the eligibility of the premium on EDLI Scheme and Premium on DI & CGC as input services for Cenvat credit.

Ultimately, the Tribunal allowed the appeal by remanding the matter to the original authority for a fresh decision, emphasizing the need for a personal hearing for the appellant before reaching a conclusion on the Cenvat credit and penalty imposition.

In conclusion, the judgment focused on the proper documentation required for availing Cenvat credit, the exclusion of certain premiums from the credit, and the necessity for a thorough reevaluation by the original authority in compliance with statutory provisions and relevant legal precedents.