2018 (9) TMI 166 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT Credit - duty paying invoices - it was alleged that appellant have wrongly availed Cenvat Credit on the strength of invoice/bills bearing hand written Serial No. issued by service providers - Held that - The service tax has been paid by the service providers has not been challenged. The fact that the invoices were issued by the Service Providers has also not been challenged. In that prospect, the allegation is merely technical in so far as the Serial numbers instead of printed, were hand-written. Tribunal in the case of Dhanvridhi Commercial Pvt. Ltd. 2013 (3) TMI 161 - CESTAT KOLKATA held that there is no such requirement of printing of Serial numbers. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues: Denial of Cenvat Credit, interest, and penalty under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004

Denial of Cenvat Credit:
The appeal was filed against the denial of Cenvat Credit, interest, and penalty under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The appellant, engaged in the manufacture of glass Chatons and imitation jewelry, availed Cenvat Credit, which was challenged based on hand-written serial numbers on invoices from service providers. The appellant argued that the requirement of pre-printing serial numbers had been eliminated under the current rules, citing Rule 4A of Service Tax Rules, 1994, and Rule 11 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. The appellant contended that all service providers were registered within the jurisdiction, paid taxes, and the service provision was not in doubt. Previous tribunal decisions were referenced to support the allowance of credit for invoices with hand-written serial numbers, emphasizing that it was a procedural lapse and should not lead to credit denial.

Analysis of Denial of Cenvat Credit:
The Tribunal noted that the payment of service tax by providers and the issuance of invoices were not disputed. The main contention revolved around the hand-written serial numbers instead of printed ones on the invoices. Referring to the decision in the case of Dhanvridhi Commercial Pvt. Ltd., which held that there was no mandatory requirement for the printing of serial numbers, the Tribunal found no merit in the denial of credit based on this technicality. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the order and allowed the appeal.

Interest and Penalty Imposition:
The judgment primarily focused on the denial of Cenvat Credit due to the hand-written serial numbers on invoices. The issue of interest and penalty imposition was not extensively discussed in the judgment, as the decision was centered on the validity of availing Cenvat Credit. The Tribunal's ruling in favor of the appellant regarding the denial of credit rendered further analysis on interest and penalty unnecessary in this particular case.

Conclusion:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT AHMEDABAD addressed the denial of Cenvat Credit to the appellant based on the use of hand-written serial numbers on invoices from service providers. By analyzing relevant rules and previous tribunal decisions, the Tribunal concluded that the absence of printed serial numbers should not be a reason to deny credit, considering it a procedural issue rather than a substantial violation. The decision to set aside the denial of credit showcases a nuanced understanding of the legal provisions and practical considerations in the realm of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.