9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (6) TMI 435 - HC - Central ExciseCENVAT credit - duty paying documents - improper document (Debit notes) - Documents do not carry necessary details - Whether Central CENVAT Credit can be allowed on the basis of a document which does not carry required details as are provided under Rule 9(1) of CCR 2004? - Held that - All the particulars as required under Rule 9(2) of Cenvat Credit Rules are undisputedly appearing on the debit note. Therefore the debit note is at par with the documents prescribed under Rule 9(1) of Cenvat Credit Rules 2004. The ratio of judgement in the case of Emmes Metals Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise 2016 (5) TMI 1046 - CESTAT MUMBAI , is squarely applicable in the present case, where it was held that whatever informations required in terms of Rule 4A in the document, more or less all the informations are appearing in the debit notes, therefore the debit notes can be accepted for allowing Cenvat Credit. There is no dispute raised by the department that the service were received and same was accounted for in the books of account of the appellant, therefore, the debit note containing all the details as required under the rule 9(2) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 is valid documents for the purpose of taking cenvat credit - the appellant is entitled for the Cenvat credit on the debit note. Taking into consideration the fact that even first authority while considering the matter has admitted the debit note which was produced though holding it to be in contravention under Rule 9 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 but in view of the different decisions of the tribunal, the view taken by the tribunal is required to be accepted and the same is accepted. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant-Revenue.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether Central CENVAT Credit can be allowed on the basis of a document which does not carry required details as provided under Rule 9(1) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Whether Central CENVAT Credit can be allowed on the basis of a document which does not carry required details as provided under Rule 9(1) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004: The appellant challenged the Tribunal's decision that allowed the assessee to avail CENVAT credit based on debit notes issued by M/s. GAIL (I) Ltd. The primary contention was that debit notes are not specified documents under Rule 9(1) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, which lists acceptable documents for availing CENVAT credit. The appellant's counsel argued that the Tribunal erred in accepting debit notes as valid documents for CENVAT credit. He cited several judgments to support the argument that statutory provisions granting tax concessions or exemptions must be strictly construed, and any deviation from prescribed documentation should not be permitted. The cases referenced include: - Panwar Trading Corporation vs. State of Rajasthan (2015): Emphasized strict compliance with statutory conditions for availing tax concessions. - Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi vs. Hari Chand Shri Gopal (2011): Reiterated the necessity of fulfilling mandatory conditions for tax exemptions or concessions. - S.K. Foils Ltd. vs. Central Excise (2009): Highlighted that Modvat credit cannot be granted based on carbon copies of invoices. - Executive Engineer (Civil), MPEB vs. Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise, Ujjan (2007): Stressed the importance of proper documentation for availing MODVAT credit. - USA Agencies vs. The Commercial Tax Officer (2013): Discussed strict construction of provisions for availing input tax credit. The respondent's counsel countered by referencing the Tribunal's detailed analysis, which found that the debit notes in question contained all necessary details as per Rule 9(1) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, such as service tax registration number, name and address of the service provider and recipient, description of service, value of taxable service, and service tax charged. The Tribunal had consistently held in various cases that if debit notes contain all required details, they can be treated as valid documents for CENVAT credit. Cases cited include: - Shree Cement Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise (2013): Allowed CENVAT credit based on debit notes containing all required details. - Emmes Metals Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise (2016): Affirmed that debit notes with all necessary information can be accepted for CENVAT credit. - Pharmalab Process Equipments Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commr. of C. Ex. (2009): Held that debit notes with required details should be accepted for CENVAT credit. - Commissioner of Central Excise, Indore vs. Grasim Industries Ltd. (2011): Supported the view that debit notes with all necessary details can be treated as invoices. - Mahanagar Gas Limited vs. Commissioner of Central Excise (2013): Confirmed that debit notes with all required details are valid for CENVAT credit. The respondent also referred to decisions by higher courts: - Gujarat High Court in CCE and C. vs. Eupec-Welspun Pipe Coatings India Ltd. (2010): Held that credit should not be denied if documents contain all necessary details. - Delhi High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Moonlight Builders and Developers (2008): Criticized arbitrary denial of tax benefits based on technicalities. The High Court, after considering the arguments and precedents, concluded that the Tribunal's decision to allow CENVAT credit based on debit notes containing all required details was correct. The court emphasized that the substance of the documents, rather than their nomenclature, should determine their validity for tax credit purposes. Consequently, the issue was resolved in favor of the assessee, and the appeal was dismissed.
|
