9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (7) TMI 763 - AT - Central ExciseCENVAT Credit - denial of credit on the grounds that address of the appellant mentioned in the input invoices was not that of factory of manufacturing to qualify as valid duty paying documents and that payment of value of service and Service Tax was paid by the CHA sub-contractor and not by CHA itself - period April 2014 to March 2015 - HELD THAT - In view of the decision of this Tribunal reported in OM TEXTILES VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE NEW DELHI 2006 (1) TMI 385 - CESTAT NEW DELHI the invoices showing wrong address if subsequently corrected are eligible documents for availment of credit which precedent is followed till date as found from the decision in BHALLA TECHTRAN INDUSTRIES LTD. VERSUS CCE NOIDA 2015 (7) TMI 1175 - CESTAT NEW DELHI credits on the basis of those decisions can t be held to be inadmissible. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues:
Recovery of CENVAT credit, validity of duty paying documents, denial of credit on tax paid through invoices, disallowance of credit on the ground of tax payment, applicability of period of limitation and penalty. Analysis: The judgment revolves around the recovery of CENVAT credit amounting to ?17,05,140/- reduced to ?12,33,291/- by the Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise & Service Tax (Appeals), Nagpur, along with interest and penalties. The appellant, engaged in manufacturing, faced a show-cause notice proposing recovery of wrongly availed CENVAT credit during April 2014 to March 2015. The notice alleged inadmissible credit due to discrepancies in the duty paying documents, specifically related to the address mentioned in the invoices not matching the factory's address and payment of service tax. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the duty demand, but the appellant obtained partial relief from the Commissioner (Appeals), leading to the current appeal challenging the reduced duty demand. During the appeal, the appellant's counsel argued for the acceptance of CENVAT credit on tax paid through invoices of M/s Sapphire Technologies Ltd., Mumbai, amounting to ?11,01,677/-. The counsel highlighted that despite initial discrepancies in the invoices, subsequent corrections were made by the service provider, validating the invoices. The appellant also defended the credit involving M/s Seaways Shipping and Logistic Ltd., stressing that the intermediary role of CHA justified the credit even if the tax was paid by the sub-contractor. The appellant further contested the period of limitation and penalty applicability, citing relevant legal precedents to support their position. In response, the Authorised Representative for the respondent-department supported the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order, stating that the appellant failed to provide necessary documents to substantiate their claim, justifying the denial of interference with the lower authority's decision. However, upon hearing both sides and examining the case record, the Tribunal found merit in the appellant's arguments. The Tribunal noted that the acceptance of CENVAT credit should be based on whether the input services were received and used for manufacturing dutiable products, with appropriate service tax payment. The Tribunal emphasized that technical discrepancies in invoices, if subsequently corrected, should not render the credit inadmissible, citing legal precedents to support this stance. Additionally, the Tribunal clarified that if duty is paid by a sub-agency and passed on through an intermediary, the credit on service tax paid should be considered admissible. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the order denying CENVAT credit of ?12,33,291/- issued by the Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise & Service Tax (Appeals), Nagpur.
|
