2017 (6) TMI 1020 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - duty paying invoices - whether the credit of ₹ 11,08,694/- is admissible on debit notes issued by the service provider? - Held that - all the necessary information which are required to be appeared on the service tax paying document i.e. invoice, challan etc. are clearly mentioned in the debit notes, therefore except the title of the document there is no difference between the details supposed to be appeared in the invoice and the details which actually appearing in the said debit notes. Therefore the credit on such debit notes cannot be denied - issue is covered by the decision in the case of Ad-Manum Packaging Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of C. Ex., Indore 2017 (4) TMI 209 - CESTAT NEW DELHI , where it was held that as long as such debit notes contained all requisite information as prescribed under Rule 9(1), these should be considered on par with invoices and, hence, credit cannot be denied - credit allowed. CENVAT credit - bus service for which the recovery was made from the employees - time limitation - Held that - the availment of CENVAT credit on bus service and recovery of the service charges from the employee were not disclosed to the department by the appellant, therefore there is a clear suppression of fact on this count. Hence, the demand for extended period is correct, accordingly the demand of ₹ 1,26,385/- corresponding penalty and interest are upheld. Appeal allowed - decided partly in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Admissibility of credit on debit notes issued by the service provider.
2. Admissibility of cenvat credit on bus service charges recovered from employees and whether it is hit by limitation.
3. Contested demand of credit taken for a service amount not appearing in the service provider's invoice.

Issue 1: Admissibility of Credit on Debit Notes:
The appellant argued that the debit notes contain all necessary information required for invoices or challans as per Rule 4A of Service Tax Rules, 1994, and thus should not be disregarded for allowing credit. Citing relevant judgments, the appellant contended that the credit on debit notes cannot be denied if they contain the required information. The tribunal agreed, citing previous decisions that supported allowing cenvat credit based on debit notes that meet the Rule 4A requirements. The tribunal found that the necessary details were present in the debit notes, and hence, the credit on such debit notes cannot be denied.

Issue 2: Cenvat Credit on Bus Service Charges:
Regarding the cenvat credit of &8377; 1,26,385/- availed on bus service, the appellant argued that the demand is time-barred as the extended period was invoked. The appellant referenced a judgment by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court to support their claim that there was no suppression of facts, making the demand time-barred. However, the Revenue contended that the appellant had suppressed vital facts related to the credit availed on bus service and the recovery of service charges from employees. The tribunal found that there was clear suppression of fact by the appellant, leading to upholding the demand for the extended period along with corresponding penalties and interest.

Issue 3: Contested Demand for Unspecified Service Amount:
The appellant did not contest the demand related to the credit taken for a service amount of &8377; 36,937/-, which was not appearing in the service provider's invoice. The tribunal affirmed this demand along with penalties and interest as the appellant did not contest it. The appellant's plea that the demand was time-barred was not accepted due to the lack of disclosure of relevant facts to the department, leading to a clear suppression of fact. Consequently, the demand for the cenvat credit on bus service, penalties, and interest were upheld.

In conclusion, the tribunal allowed the appeal partially, setting aside the demand for credit on debit notes while affirming the demand for the unspecified service amount not appearing in the invoice and the cenvat credit on bus service charges. The tribunal upheld the penalties and interest corresponding to the upheld demands, emphasizing the importance of disclosing all relevant facts to avoid suppression of facts and time-barred claims.