2021 (6) TMI 850 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT Credit - duty paying documents - denial on the ground that the document on the strength of which credit has been availed is not proper - HELD THAT - There is no finding in the adjudication order and the appeal order that the input service has neither been received by the appellant nor tax has not been paid on said service - The certificate dated 09.02.2018 issued by the Federal Bank, which duly mentions the service tax amount recovered from the appellant and the service tax registration number of the bank branch. Since there is no dispute with regard to the nature of input services, the appellant should not be deprived of the Cenvat Credit which is available under the CENVAT Credit Rules framed as a beneficial scheme of the Central Excise statute - justice would be served if the appellant is accorded an opportunity to produce the said certificate before the adjudicating authority, who would examine the same and satisfy itself in so far credit amount is involved in the present dispute. Appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
- Disallowance of CENVAT Credit on input services due to deficiencies in documents.
- Entitlement of the appellant to avail credit based on the document's validity.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed against the Order-in-Appeal upholding the demand of central excise duty along with interest and penalty for the period 2013-14, due to disallowance of CENVAT Credit of input services by the Asst. Commissioner, Central Excise, Howrah.

2. The appellant, engaged in manufacturing excisable goods, availed credit on input services lacking necessary details like the appellant's address and service tax registration number of service providers, leading to disallowance of credit by authorities. However, the appellant provided a certificate from the Bank showing service tax payment, which included the service tax registration number of the Bank branch.

3. During the proceedings, it was argued that the receipt of services and tax payment were not in dispute, and credit denial was due to procedural deficiencies. The dispute revolved around the acceptance of the document supporting the credit availed, with no contention that services were not received or taxes not paid.

4. The Member (Judicial) found that since there was no dispute regarding the nature of input services, the appellant should not be deprived of CENVAT Credit, a beneficial scheme under the Central Excise statute. The Member ordered the appellant to produce the certificate before the adjudicating authority for necessary examination and computation, directing the authority to pass a de-novo order within three months.

5. Ultimately, the appeal was allowed by way of remand, providing the appellant with an opportunity to substantiate the credit claim with the required documentation before the adjudicating authority for a fresh decision.