2018 (2) TMI 366 - AT - Central Excise

Doctrine of merger - CENVAT credit - input services - whether the issue which has been already settled in earlier round of litigation can be raised again? - Held that - Revenue is trying to raise an issue which is already settled by the earlier order of this Tribunal in the earlier round of litigation - under the doctrine of merger, Revenue cannot raise concluded issue in the remanded matter by Tribunal wherein directions were specific that the Adjudicating Authority is required only to examine whether debit notes in question contain all the particulars as required under Rule 4A of Service Tax Rule, 1994 - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Disallowance of Cenvat credit based on debit notes instead of invoices.
2. Eligibility of sales commission as input service under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.

Issue 1: Disallowance of Cenvat credit based on debit notes:
The Tribunal had earlier remanded the issue to the Original Authority to determine if the debit notes contained all required invoice particulars under Rule 4A of Service Tax Rules. The Tribunal emphasized that if a debit note includes all necessary invoice information, the credit cannot be denied solely based on the document title. The Tribunal cited precedents to support this view. The Commissioner, upon reevaluation, found that the debit notes in question met the requirements and allowed the Cenvat credit for sales commission. The Revenue challenged this decision, arguing that the Commissioner erred in allowing credit on debit notes and including sales commission as part of the input service definition. The Tribunal held that the Revenue was attempting to re-litigate a settled issue, invoking the doctrine of merger. As the Tribunal's earlier direction was specific to examining the completeness of the debit notes, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed under the doctrine of merger.

Issue 2: Eligibility of sales commission as input service:
The Commissioner determined that the sales commission paid to commission agents, supported by debit notes meeting invoice particulars, qualified for Cenvat credit under Rule 4A of Service Tax Rules. The Commissioner also concluded that sales commission fell within the definition of input service as per Rule 2(l) of CCR, 2004. However, the Revenue contended that the Commissioner's decision was erroneous, as the Tribunal's remand was limited to verifying the completeness of the debit notes. Despite the Revenue's challenge, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision, emphasizing that the Revenue's arguments were beyond the scope of the Tribunal's earlier direction. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming the eligibility of sales commission as an input service and the allowance of Cenvat credit based on the debit notes meeting required particulars.

This judgment highlights the importance of adhering to specific directions issued by the Tribunal in remanded matters, the doctrine of merger preventing re-litigation of settled issues, and the significance of ensuring that documents such as debit notes contain all necessary particulars to qualify for Cenvat credit under the relevant rules.