9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (12) TMI 82 - AT - Central ExciseCENVAT credit - transportation of inputs by Railways - duty paying documents - denial of credit on the ground that the appellants produced photo copies of monthly consolidated certificate/RR/money receipt issued by the Railways - Held that - Admittedly, the documents which the appellant produced are prescribed as one of the eligible documents by Notification No.26/2014-CE(NT) - the admitted position is that the appellant availed taxable service for transporting inputs by Railways and did suffer service tax. The provisions of Rule 9 is basically to ensure that no assessee availed the credit which is not due to them - In the present case, the denial of credit on the ground that the documents produced were officially prescribed by the rule only from a particular date is not justifiable. The original authority directed to examine supporting documents which the appellant claim are duly authenticated by the service provider (Indian Railways) and to examine the eligibility of the appellant for such credit - appeal allowed by way of remand.
Issues:
- Eligibility of the appellant to avail Cenvat credit of service tax paid on transportation of inputs by Railways. - Denial of Cenvat credit by the original authority based on prescribed document requirements. - Imposition of penalties under Rule 15(1) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and Rule 27 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. - Interpretation of the amendment in Rule 9(1) by Notification No.26.2014-CE(NT) dated 27.8.2014. - Discretion of the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner/ Dy. Commissioner in allowing credit based on supporting documents. Analysis: The appeals before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT NEW DELHI revolve around the dispute concerning the appellant's entitlement to Cenvat credit for service tax paid on the transportation of inputs by Railways between October 2012 and August 2014. The original authority denied the credit citing non-compliance with the prescribed conditions under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, specifically regarding the documents submitted by the appellants. Penalties were imposed under relevant rules due to this denial. The appellant's counsel argued that the denial was solely based on the documents not meeting the stipulations of Rule 9(1) of CCR, 2004. They highlighted an amendment in Rule 9(1) introduced by Notification No.26.2014-CE(NT) to include a new document requirement, the STTG Certificate issued by Indian Railways for transportation of goods by rail. The counsel contended that this amendment was clarificatory in nature to address difficulties faced by appellants, not a substantial statutory change. In contrast, the respondent's representative supported the original authority's decision, emphasizing the statutory nature of the prescribed documents under Rule 9(1) and the lack of discretion in this regard. Upon review, the Tribunal found that the documents submitted by the appellant were in line with the newly added requirement of STTG Certificate as per the amendment. The Tribunal noted that the purpose of Rule 9 was to ensure proper verification of tax payments, allowing some discretion to the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner/ Dy. Commissioner to permit credit even with minor document discrepancies. The Tribunal disagreed with the Revenue's stance that the new documents were valid only post-amendment, emphasizing the need for fair treatment of bonafide assessees. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the original authority's decision and directed a reevaluation of the appellant's supporting documents, emphasizing the authentication by the service provider (Indian Railways) and the eligibility of the appellant for the credit. The appeals were allowed for further examination based on the observations made, indicating a remand for detailed assessment.
|
