2024 (7) TMI 59 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit of service tax availed on the strength of Input Service Distributor bill issued by the Head Office of the appellant, denied - duty paying documents - allegation is that the said bill did not contain the requisite particulars as required under Rule 4A of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 - HELD THAT - As per Rule 9(2) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, Cenvat credit shall be taken by the manufacturer or the provider of output service or input service distributor as the case may be on the basis of any of the documents. In appellant s case they have produced challan evidencing payment of service tax by their Head Office and thereby complied with provision of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. In addition to that they have produced an invoice issued by their Head Office i.e. provider of input service. Thus, they have complied with the provisions of 6(f) also. The particulars regarding the registration, the registration relied by the adjudication authority is only on the request made by the Head Office of the appellant for change of name and as per the evidence available on record, they have registered with the Service Tax Authorities w.e.f. 21.03.2005. Thus both the findings given by adjudication/appellate authority are factually wrong and unsustainable. The appellant is eligible for the Cenvat credit availed by them based on the challan issued by the Head Office - the impugned order is set aside - appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Denial of cenvat credit based on Input Service Distributor bill lacking requisite particulars under Rule 4A of Service Tax Rules, 1994.

Analysis:
The appellant availed cenvat credit of service tax using Input Service Distributor bill from M/s. Federal Mogul Goetze (India) Ltd. A show-cause notice alleged non-compliance with Rule 4A, leading to recovery of irregular credit with interest and penalty. The appellate authority upheld this decision, prompting the present appeal.

During the hearing, the appellant's counsel highlighted the show-cause notice's allegations of contravention of Rule 9(2) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The adjudication authority rejected the claim citing non-compliance with Rule 4A(2) requirements for the bill issued by the Input Service Distributor.

The counsel argued that the invoice and challan produced contained necessary particulars as per Rule 9(e) & (f), indicating compliance with Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. They refuted the adjudication authority's claim of registration discrepancy by presenting evidence of the appellant's registration since 21.03.2005, not 09.09.2008 as held.

Citing a Tribunal decision in Lokesh Machines Ltd. Vs. CCE, Hyderabad-I, the counsel emphasized proper accounting of credit despite minor invoice particulars issues. The AR supported the adjudication authority's findings, contending non-compliance with legal provisions.

The Tribunal, considering Rule 9(2) requirements, found the appellant's compliance through the challan and invoice from the Head Office. Dismissing the adjudication/appellate authority's factual inaccuracies, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, granting consequential relief as per the law.

In conclusion, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief, if any, in accordance with the law. The operative part of the order was pronounced in open court on 06.06.2024.