2015 (9) TMI 821 - AT - Service Tax

Denial of CENVAT Credit - input services - C&F Agent Service, Courier Services - credit has been disallowed to the appellant on the ground that cenvatable documents are not showing the registration number of the unit who is providing taxable services to the appellant - Held that - So far as the admissibility of cenvat credit is concerned, the same is covered by the case law of this Bench in the appellant s own case of Meghmani Organics Limited vs. CCE, Ahmedabad (2011 (8) TMI 542 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD) and Meghachem Industries vs. CCE, Ahmedabad (2011 (4) TMI 221 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD), wherein it is held that cenvat credit of Courier Services and CHA up to the place of export are admissible. Appellant s case is therefore covered by the ratio laid down by this Bench and credit with respect to Courier Service and C&F Agent service, in relation to export is admissible. So far as denial of cenvat credit with respect to certain documents on which registration number of service provider was not indicated, it is observed that Respondent subsequently produced necessary certificates from the jurisdictional Central Excise authorities showing registration number of the service provider. As per the provisions contained in Rule 9(2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, if documents does not contain all the particulars but contains details of service tax paid, description of taxable services etc. then the same can be got verified from the jurisdictional Central Excise officers. Further, the procedural irregularities cannot be made the basis for denying the cenvat credit. Accordingly, cenvat credit was admissible to the appellant on the issue of certain documents for which necessary registration number etc. were provided by the Respondent. - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Admissibility of CENVAT credit for Courier Services and C&F Agent Service under Rule 2(2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.
Denial of CENVAT credit due to missing registration number of the service provider on documents.

Analysis:
1. Admissibility of CENVAT Credit for Courier Services and C&F Agent Service:
The Revenue contended that the appellant had taken credit for services beyond the factory premises or not related to manufacturing activity, which is not permissible under Rule 2(2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The first appellate authority disallowed certain credits due to missing registration numbers on cenvatable documents. However, the Respondent argued, citing relevant case laws, that Courier Service credit was admissible based on previous rulings. The Bench referred to past cases and held that cenvat credit for Courier Services and C&F Agent services related to export is indeed admissible. Thus, the appellant's case was supported by the precedents set by the Bench.

2. Denial of CENVAT Credit for Missing Registration Number:
The Respondent faced denial of cenvat credit due to missing registration numbers of service providers on documents. The Advocate argued that necessary certificates showing the registration numbers were later produced, as allowed under Rule 9(2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The Advocate referenced case laws and emphasized that procedural irregularities should not be grounds for denying cenvat credit. The Bench acknowledged the submission of necessary certificates and noted that missing details can be verified by the jurisdictional Central Excise officers. Consequently, the denial of cenvat credit based on missing registration numbers was overturned, and the credit was deemed admissible for the appellant.

In conclusion, the appeal filed by the Revenue was rejected based on the findings related to the admissibility of CENVAT credit for Courier Services and C&F Agent Service, as well as the resolution of the issue concerning the missing registration numbers of service providers on documents. The judgment upheld the appellant's right to claim cenvat credit in accordance with relevant rules and precedents established by the Bench.