2020 (3) TMI 1052 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT Credit - duty paying invoices - rejection for the reason that invoices of input service bear handwritten serial number - HELD THAT - In the appellant s own earlier case a show cause notice F.no. V(CH.70) 3-31/DEM/10- 11 dated 30/05/2011 was issued on the same issue that whether the appellant is entitled for Cenvat Credit on the invoice issued by the service provider which bears handwritten serial number. That case was travelled up to this Tribunal in appeal no. E/11069/2015. This Tribunal in KRUPA TRADING COMPANY VERSUS C.C.E S.T. -VALSAD 2020 (2) TMI 293 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD decided the matter in appellant s favour. The reason for denial of the Cenvat Credit in the above decision of the Tribunal and in the present case is absolutely identical. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues involved: Denial of Cenvat Credit due to handwritten serial numbers on input service invoices.

Analysis:
The main issue in the present case was whether the denial of Cenvat Credit by the Adjudicating Authority based on invoices of input services bearing handwritten serial numbers was correct. The appellant's counsel referred to a previous case with the same issue, where the Tribunal had decided in favor of the appellant. The Tribunal analyzed various rules including Rule 4A(1) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994, and Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. It was noted that the rules required invoices to be serially numbered but did not specify that they must have pre-printed serial numbers. The Tribunal emphasized that as long as there was no dispute regarding the payment of service tax by the service provider, discrepancies like handwritten serial numbers should not lead to denial of Cenvat Credit.

The Tribunal further highlighted that the appellant had provided evidence of payment of service tax against the invoices in question during audits. Despite this, the Adjudicating Authority had denied the credit solely based on the absence of pre-printed serial numbers and registration numbers on the invoices. The Tribunal reiterated that denial of Cenvat Credit should not be based solely on such discrepancies, especially when there is no doubt about the payment of service tax by the service provider. The Tribunal directed a re-consideration of the matter by the adjudicating authority to confirm whether the service providers had indeed paid the service tax on the disputed invoices.

Ultimately, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal, following its previous decision on a similar issue. The judgment emphasized consistency in decisions and the importance of ensuring that denial of Cenvat Credit is based on valid grounds related to tax compliance rather than procedural discrepancies.