2018 (12) TMI 1017 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT Credit - duty paying documents - invoices issued by their registered office as input service distributor - Held that - The Ld. Chartered Accountant, for the appellant, submits that because of the voluminous nature of the supporting documents, only consolidated statements were furnished, whereas they are in a position to submit invoices issued by the respective service providers in favour of the registered office. The matter needs to be remanded to the Adjudicating Authority for examination of the supporting documents so as to ascertain whether the appellant are eligible for the credit on the invoices issued by their registered office as input service distributor, under Cenvat Credit in January, 2007 - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
- Dispute over Cenvat Credit availed by the appellant based on ISD invoices
- Non-acceptance of invoices by the Commissioner due to lack of supporting documents
- Legal validity of ISD registration and issuance of invoices
- Request for remand to original Adjudicating Authority for verification

Analysis:

The appellant, engaged in the manufacture and sale of 'Carbon Black,' filed an appeal against the order-in-Original No 69/70/Commr./BOL/07 dated 27th November 2007, concerning the issuance of ISD invoices by their Head Office to the Durgapur Plant. The appellant availed Cenvat Credit amounting to &8377; 325,06,885 based on these invoices. The Revenue raised concerns regarding the compliance of Rule 7A and Rule 9 of the Cenvat Credit Rules,2004, along with Rule 4A of Service Tax Rules, 1994, due to missing details in the ISD invoices.

The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demand, emphasizing that the consolidated statement in the invoices could not substitute individual invoices, the Head Office was not registered for credit distribution at the time, and verification was not feasible. The appellant argued that the issue was similar to a previous case where the Tribunal allowed an appeal by remand, citing the voluminous nature of documents as the reason for providing a summary in the annexure. They also highlighted the registration of ISD and the broad definition of input service during the relevant period.

In the hearing, the appellant's representative reiterated the grounds from the Order-in-Original, not opposing a remand for verification. The Tribunal observed that the Cenvat Credit was availed based on ISD invoices but not accepted by the Commissioner due to missing supporting documents. Considering the appellant's claim and the need for justice, the matter was remanded to the Adjudicating Authority for verification of supporting documents to determine the eligibility for credit. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed by way of remand, granting both parties the opportunity to present evidence.

In conclusion, the judgment focused on the compliance of rules regarding ISD invoices, the necessity of supporting documents for availing credit, and the need for verification to ascertain eligibility. The decision to remand the case for further examination by the Adjudicating Authority aimed at ensuring a just outcome based on complete information and evidence.