2024 (8) TMI 265 - AT - Service Tax

CENVAT Credit - duty paying documents - credit can be availed on e-statement issued by NPCI during the period April 2009 to March 2012 or not - It is the allegation of the Department that since the e-statement does not contain the particulars as required under Rule 9 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, cenvat credit is not admissible - HELD THAT - The issue is no more res integra and considered by this Tribunal in the case of M/S. THE KARUR VYSYA BANK LTD. VERSUS CCE ST, TRICHY 2019 (2) TMI 1383 - CESTAT CHENNAI , wherein it is observed ' From a perusal of the statement issued by NPCI, we note that it is a self-contained document incorporating all the mandatory requirements of proviso to Rule 4A and in any case, NPCI is not a private body just to ignore its statement; as to the nature of service, there is an agreement in place.' The credit is allowed - the impugned order is set aside and appeal is allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Whether the appellant is entitled to avail cenvat credit on e-statement issued by NPCI during the period April 2009 to March 2012.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against an Order-in-Original passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax, Calicut, regarding the appellant availing inadmissible cenvat credit without proper documents for input services received. The appellant, a banking company, claimed credit based on e-statements issued by NPCI. The appellant argued that NPCI acts as an agent of member banks and the e-statements should be treated as valid invoices under Rule 4A of Service Tax Rules, 1994. The appellant cited precedents where similar demands were dropped for other banks. The Revenue, however, supported the findings of the Commissioner. The Tribunal considered whether the e-statement issued by NPCI met the requirements of Rule 9 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.

The Tribunal noted that NPCI facilitates transactions for banking companies and provides necessary network services. The proviso to Rule 4A of the Service Tax Rules, 1994, applies to banking companies, allowing flexibility in the form of invoices. The agreement between the appellant (a member bank) and NPCI outlined the services provided and the invoicing process. The Tribunal found that the e-statement issued by NPCI contained all required particulars and should be considered a valid document for availing cenvat credit. The Tribunal highlighted that NPCI's credibility and compliance were not in question, further supporting the appellant's position.

The Tribunal referred to precedents and the Commissioner's decision in dropping similar demands for the appellant for subsequent periods. Considering the arguments and precedents, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal with consequential relief as per law. The judgment emphasized the importance of the agreement between the appellant and NPCI, the nature of services provided, and the validity of the e-statements for claiming cenvat credit.