2017 (2) TMI 302 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - denial on the ground that the documents on which the credit was taken, are debit notes, vouchers and statements which are not the valid documents for taking cenvat credit under the provisions of Rule 9 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - Held that - though it is not pre-printed commercial invoice but it is either in letterhead on the lesser of the premise or in the printed form of the invoice is in terms of Rule 9 of the Cenvat Credit Rule , the only requirement is that certain information should be incorporated in the documents. Even though it is called by name invoice, if any document issued by the service provider, which contained all the information as required under Rule 4 of the Service Tax Rules, credit should be allowed - From the documents, I observe that all such informations are given in the so called invoices therefore credit on such invoices cannot be denied. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
- Denial of cenvat credit on the ground of invalid documents under Rule 9 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.
- Denial of cenvat credit due to premises not being registered in the Central Excise registration.
- Allegation of time bar and suppression of facts not considered by the Commissioner (Appeals).

Analysis:
1. Denial of Cenvat Credit on Ground of Invalid Documents:
The appellant availed cenvat credit for service tax paid on renting immovable property for their manufacturing activities. The show cause notice alleged that the credit was based on debit notes, vouchers, and statements, not valid under Rule 9. The adjudicating authority disallowed the credit, also citing the premises not being registered. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision. However, the appellant argued that the documents were valid invoices with all necessary information. The Tribunal agreed, stating that even if not pre-printed invoices, as long as they contain required details, credit should be allowed. The Tribunal found no evidence of debit notes, vouchers, or statements, and previous judgments supported credit on debit notes meeting Rule 4 requirements. Thus, the denial based on invalid documents was overturned.

2. Denial of Cenvat Credit Due to Unregistered Premises:
The adjudicating authority denied credit because the rented premises were not part of the appellant's registration certificate. However, this allegation was not in the show cause notice, making it beyond the authority's scope. The Tribunal held that the authority overstepped by considering this ground, setting it aside. The registration certificate's absence of the rented premises was not a valid reason to deny credit, as it was not raised in the notice. Therefore, this ground for denial was deemed unsustainable.

3. Allegation of Time Bar and Suppression of Facts:
The appellant argued that a significant part of the demand was time-barred due to no suppression of facts. The Commissioner (Appeals) did not address this limitation issue. However, the Tribunal did not delve into this aspect in its judgment. This issue was not considered in the final decision to allow the appeal and grant consequential relief.

In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, allowing the appeal and granting consequential relief due to the invalid denial of cenvat credit based on documents and the unauthorized consideration of unregistered premises. The judgment highlighted the importance of adherence to show cause notice allegations and the necessity of documents meeting specific requirements for credit eligibility.