2016 (7) TMI 1035 - AT - Service Tax

Cenvat Credit - Input services - certain documents called debit notes issued by the service provider - Held that - All the details of the service provided is recorded in the debit notes. Since the documents on the basis of which credit has been availed, specify and contain essential details which are required as per the proviso to Rule 9 (2) of Cenvat Credit Rules and there is no observation that service has not been received, there is no occasion to doubt about the eligibility of the documents. Decided in favor of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Whether the appellant is eligible to avail cenvat credit of service tax paid based on debit notes issued by the service provider.

Analysis:
The case involved a dispute regarding the eligibility of the appellant to avail cenvat credit of service tax paid based on debit notes issued by the service provider. The appellant, a manufacturer of Asbestos Cement Sheet, had availed input service credit from M/s.Peirce & Leslie Agencies Ltd., the CHA, for services rendered directly to the appellant and by third parties. The department objected to the validity of debit notes under Rule 9 of the CCR 2004 for availing cenvat credit.

Upon review, it was observed that the debit notes were raised for reimbursement of service value and recovery of service tax from third parties on behalf of the appellant. The CHA provided Custom House Agent service, raising invoices that included service tax, and all impugned debit notes contained the service tax registration number of the service providers. The documents specified essential details required under Rule 9 (2) of Cenvat Credit Rules, indicating the receipt of services, thus establishing the eligibility of the documents for availing credit.

Additionally, a circular by the Board and precedents set by the Tribunal in similar cases, such as Ultratech Cement Ltd. Vs CCE Jaipur-11 and Memories Photography Studio Vs CCE & ST, supported the appellant's right to credit even if the manufacturer/service provider had not discharged the tax liability. The Tribunal emphasized that the appellant's awareness of non-payment of tax before availing credit needed to be proven for denial of credit. As the service tax had been duly discharged by the service provider in this case, the appellant was deemed eligible for CENVAT credit.

Given the interpretative nature of the issue, the imposition of penalties on the appellant was deemed unwarranted, and the appeal was allowed to reduce litigation. The judgment concluded that the appellant was entitled to avail CENVAT credit, and the impugned order was set aside, allowing the appeal in favor of the appellant.