9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (12) TMI 728 - AT - Service TaxCENVAT Credit - duty paying documents - invalid documents - Held that - The assessee has brought on record the supporting invoices issued by M/s TATA MOTORS (which is duly registered with Central Excise) and has issued regular excise invoices evidencing payment of Central Excise duty on those CHASSIS NUMBER AND ENGINE NUMBERS of the TIPPERS. Though the Ld. Comm. (A) accepted the fact that under proviso to sub rule (2) of the rule 9 of CCR, 2004 there is an inbuilt provision of leniency which provides that even if the document does not contain all the particulars, but contains the details of duty or service tax as accounted for in the books and accounts, then the Dy/ Asst. Commissioner may allow the Cenvat Credit. Hon ble Supreme Court, Hon ble High Courts and the Tribunal have consistently held that when it has been established beyond doubt that the duty stood paid on the goods and the goods were received by the assessee, denial of credit on the procedural irregularity would not be justified. Credit allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues: Allegation of wrong availment and utilization of Cenvat Credit on Tippers as capital goods, excess Cenvat Credit utilization, confirmation of Service Tax demand, imposition of penalties, validity of documents, eligibility of Tippers as capital goods, limitation period for Show Cause Notice, procedural irregularity in denying credit.
Confirmation of Service Tax Demand and Penalties: The Adjudicating Authority confirmed a Service Tax demand of ?17,35,878 along with interest and imposed penalties under Sections 78 and 77(1)(b) of the Finance Act, 1994. The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the Adjudication Order, leading to the present appeal before the Tribunal. Eligibility of Tippers as Capital Goods: The appellant contended that Tippers were eligible as capital goods for services under "Supply of Tangible Goods," citing a Trade Notice by the Central Excise Commissionerate. The appellant argued that Cenvat Credit on Tippers was taken based on valid documents issued by M/s. JMA Stores Limited, Bokaro, even though the supporting excise invoice showed purchase from Tata Motors Limited, a registered entity. The appellant emphasized that the Tippers were financed, and supporting documents included Chassis and Engine numbers. Validity of Documents and Procedural Irregularity: The appellant presented supporting invoices from M/s Tata Motors and M/s Earth Mover Consultancy, both registered with Central Excise, evidencing payment of Central Excise duty on the Tippers and an Excavator. The Tribunal noted the leniency provision under CCR, 2004, allowing Cenvat Credit even if documents lacked certain particulars but contained duty details. Additionally, the Tribunal highlighted that goods were financed, received by the appellant, and relevant certificates were issued by Finance Companies, challenging the procedural irregularity in denying credit. Limitation Period and Precedents: The appellant argued that the Show Cause Notice issued in 2015 for the period from April 2010 to September 2012 was time-barred, emphasizing the absence of fraudulent intent. The Tribunal referenced precedents by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, High Courts, and Tribunal, establishing that if duty was paid on goods and received by the assessee, denial of credit due to procedural irregularities would be unjustified. Decision: After considering the arguments and evidence, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal filed by the appellant with consequential relief. The Tribunal's decision was based on the established payment of duty on goods, receipt by the assessee, and the unjust nature of denying credit due to procedural irregularities.
|
