9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (12) TMI 932 - AT - Central ExciseCENVAT Credit - duty paying invoices - denial on the ground that the subject invoices are debit notes which are not eligible documents for availing CENVAT credit in terms of Rule 9(1) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 - Held that - The Hon ble High Court of Rajasthan in the case of Bharati Hexacom Limited 2018 (6) TMI 435 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT held that CENVAT credit can be availed on the basis of debit notes. This is a binding legal precedent, ratio of which applies to the present case. Denial of credit also on the ground that the appellant had not submitted debit notes before him - Held that - Copies of these debit notes have now been enclosed in the paper book submitted by the appellant which contains all the relevant details. The service tax amount has been indicated in pen in these four debit notes but that should not be a limitation for availing of CENVAT credit and there is no requirement in the CCR 2004 that all the details of the invoice should be printed on a computer. There is no allegation in the show cause notice that service tax has not been paid by the service provider - credit allowed. Credit allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues:
1. Eligibility of CENVAT credit based on debit notes. 2. Interpretation of Rule 9(1) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. 3. Admissibility of handwritten service tax amount on debit notes. 4. Submission of debit notes as evidence for claiming credit. Analysis: Issue 1: Eligibility of CENVAT credit based on debit notes The appellant, a Public Sector Undertaking, availed CENVAT credit on service tax paid through debit notes issued by M/s Coromandel International Limited. The dispute arose when a show cause notice challenged the eligibility of these debit notes as valid documents for availing CENVAT credit. The original authority confirmed the demand, leading to an appeal by the appellant. The first appellate authority upheld the decision, prompting the appellant to further appeal. Issue 2: Interpretation of Rule 9(1) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 The crux of the matter revolved around whether debit notes are recognized as valid duty paying documents under Rule 9(1) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The first appellate authority contended that since debit notes were not explicitly listed in Rule 9(1), the appellant was not entitled to avail CENVAT credit based on them. However, legal precedents, such as the case of Bharati Hexacom Limited, supported the appellant's argument that CENVAT credit could be allowed on the basis of debit notes. Issue 3: Admissibility of handwritten service tax amount on debit notes Another point of contention was the handwritten service tax amount on the debit notes. The first appellate authority raised concerns regarding the handwritten nature of the service tax amount, suggesting it may hinder the admissibility of CENVAT credit. However, the appellant argued that there was no requirement in CCR 2004 for all invoice details to be printed, and the handwritten amount should not be a barrier to claiming credit. Issue 4: Submission of debit notes as evidence for claiming credit The first appellate authority also criticized the appellant for not submitting the actual debit notes for examination, instead providing a photocopy of a communication along with rental details. However, the appellant later enclosed copies of the debit notes in the paper book, containing all relevant details, including the handwritten service tax amount. This submission played a crucial role in the final decision to allow CENVAT credit based on the disputed debit notes. In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal. The judgment emphasized the binding legal precedent supporting the admissibility of CENVAT credit based on debit notes and highlighted the sufficiency of the submitted evidence in justifying the credit claim.
|
