9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (7) TMI 300 - AT - Central ExciseCENVAT Credit - input services - rail freight - non-fulfillment of condition of Rule 9 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 - whether the appellant can avail the credit of service tax paid on rail freight on the strength of the certified copy of railway receipts read with Monthly Consolidated Certificates and STTG certificate issued by the Western Central railway? HELD THAT - At the outset, it has to be stated that the fact of payment of service tax on the receipt of taxable services from WCR has not been disputed by revenue. This is apparent from the perusal of para 9(vi) of the impugned order which says the monthly consolidated certificate is proof that the services covered by the said document have been received and accounted for in the books of account of the receiver . There is no dispute on the qualification of transportation service as an input service to the appellant under the Rules. Rule 3(1) of the Credit Rules permits a manufacturer of final product to take credit of the tax paid on any input service received by it. We note that the issue of certified RRs read with MCC and STTG being valid documents for availing credit is no longer res integra - The Tribunal in the case of M/S. JK CEMENT LTD. VERSUS CCE, UDAIPUR 2017 (12) TMI 82 - CESTAT NEW DELHI has held that The list of documents which are required are given in rule 9(1). It is also to be noted that the jurisdictional Asst Commissioner/Deputy Commissioner has the discretion in terms of proviso to Rule 9(2) of the said rules to allow the credit if the documents produced contains details of duty or service tax payable, description of the goods or the taxable service, assessable value, service tax registration number of the person issuing the invoice et cetera. In the instant case as well, it is noted that credit has been denied by the appellate authority only on the grounds that the assessable value has not been indicated. This has been satisfactorily explained by the learned counsel that that the freight amount mentioned in all the RRs is the assessable amount for the disputed period. Once the payment of tax is not disputed, and the receipt of service is not disputed and further the revised STTG document has been issued by the WCR, there can be no justification for denial of credit due to the appellant. The appellant are entitled to avail the credit of Rs. 95,79,263/- which has been held inadmissible in the impugned order - appeal allowed.
Issues:
The denial of Cenvat credit of service tax paid on rail freight. Summary: The appellant, engaged in cement manufacturing, availed services of Indian Railways for transportation of goods. The Railways charged and collected service tax on the rail freight, issuing railway receipts (RRs) to the appellant. The appellant sought Cenvat credit based on certified copies of RRs and Monthly Consolidated Certificates (MCCs). The department denied the credit, citing non-compliance with Rule 9 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. After multiple appeals, the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed partial credit but denied the rest due to missing assessable value in the documents. The appellant contended that all necessary details, including assessable value, were present in the RRs and MCCs, in compliance with relevant rules. They argued that the practice of availing Cenvat credit was in line with Railway Board's clarification. The Authorized Representative highlighted deficiencies in the STTG certificate issued by Railways, relying on a Tribunal decision for retrospective extension of benefits. Upon hearing both parties, the Tribunal considered whether the appellant could avail credit based on certified RRs, MCCs, and STTG certificate. It noted that the payment of service tax was undisputed, and the documents submitted contained required details. Referring to previous rulings, the Tribunal emphasized the validity of documents for availing credit, even if issued before specific amendments. The denial of credit based on missing assessable value was refuted by the appellant, who argued that the freight amount in RRs served as the assessable value. With no dispute on tax payment or service receipt, and a revised STTG document provided, the Tribunal allowed the appellant to avail the previously denied credit. In conclusion, the Tribunal modified the impugned order, permitting the appellant to avail the denied credit amount.
|
