9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (8) TMI 393 - AT - Central ExciseDenial of CENVAT Credit - Credit availed on invalid documents - Whether Respondent has taken CENVAT Credit on the basis of valid documents under Rule 9 of CCR and Rule 4A of the Service Tax Rules - Held that - Debit note could also belong to the category of Invoice where all the prescribed details are available. As per World Book Dictionary also, an invoice means a list of goods sent to a purchaser often showing such other information as price, amounts etc. Similarly, a Bill means a statement of money owned for work done or things supplied. Accordingly, a debit note having all the prescribed details could be an invoice or bill. It is not brought out by Revenue as to what are the standard elements of an Invoice or Bill or Challan which are lacking in the debit notes issued to Respondent s Head Office. - Respondent has taken credit on the basis of ISD invoices issued by Respondents HQ and not on the basis of debit notes of the Sales Commission agents. As ISD invoices on the basis of which credit was taken are the prescribed documents, therefore, credit was correctly taken by the Respondent. Accordingly, there is no reason to interfere with the orders passed by the First Appellate Authority. - Decided against Revenue.
Issues involved:
1. Whether the Respondent took CENVAT Credit on the basis of valid documents under Rule 9 of CCR and Rule 4A of the Service Tax Rules. Analysis: Issue 1: Whether the Respondent took CENVAT Credit on the basis of valid documents under Rule 9 of CCR and Rule 4A of the Service Tax Rules The appeal filed by the Revenue sought reversal of the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) allowing the Appellant's appeal. The Revenue argued that the Respondent had taken CENVAT Credit based on debit notes issued in the name of their HQ, which were not prescribed documents under Rule 9 of CCR and Rule 4A of the Service Tax Rules. It was contended that the HQ office was not registered as an Input Service Distributor (ISD), and credit was not distributed to the Daman unit. On the other hand, the Respondent argued that the CENVAT Credit was taken based on ISD certificates issued by their Mumbai office, which were valid documents. The Respondent's Advocate cited various case laws to support their argument that the credit was correctly taken. The Tribunal observed that the debit notes could be considered as invoices if they contained all the necessary details as per the rules. The Tribunal also noted that the ISD invoices issued by the Head Office contained essential information required under Rule 4A of the Service Tax Rules, making them valid documents for availing credit under Rule 9 of CCR. As the Respondent had taken credit on the basis of ISD invoices, the appeal by the Revenue was rejected. In conclusion, the Tribunal found that the Respondent had taken CENVAT Credit on the basis of valid documents, namely ISD invoices issued by the Head Office, which contained all necessary particulars as required by the rules. The appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed, upholding the decision of the First Appellate Authority in favor of the Respondent.
|
