2019 (11) TMI 780 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT Credit - duty paying documents - validity of documents on the basis of which the appellant has availed Cenvat credit - Rule 9 of the Cenvat Credit Rules reads with Rule 4A of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 - HELD THAT - As is seen from the provisions of Rule 4A itself provides that in case of banking services invoice shall include any document by what so ever name called whether or not serial numbered or whether or not containing address of the person receiving taxable services. In the absence of any dispute of the tax paid and utilization of the said service we find that Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly allowed the credit to the respondent - there are no merits in the Revenue s appeal - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Validity of documents for availing Cenvat credit of service tax paid to Banking and Financial Services.

Analysis:
The Tribunal rejected a request for adjournment and proceeded to decide both appeals of the Revenue together due to a common issue. The dispute revolved around the validity of documents for availing Cenvat credit of service tax on Banking and Financial Services from 2004 to 2010. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that the appellant used self-generated statements and back calculation of service tax based on bank statements, which were deemed improper under Rule 9 of the Cenvat Credit Rules and Rule 4A of the Service Tax Rules, 1994. Rule 4A specifies that in the case of banking services, any document issued by a banking company or financial institution, regardless of its name or numbering, shall be considered a proper invoice for taxable services provided. The Commissioner (Appeals) noted that the banking and financial services were not input services for the appellant's manufacturing process, but the tax paid on these services was legitimate. Therefore, the Original Authority's denial of the credit based on technical grounds was deemed unjustified, as technicalities should not bar the appellant from claiming Cenvat credit.

The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)' decision, stating that in the absence of any dispute regarding the tax payment and utilization of the services, the credit was rightly allowed to the respondent. The Revenue's appeal was found to lack merit and was consequently rejected. Additionally, the cross-objection filed by the respondent was disposed of accordingly. The judgment emphasized the importance of adhering to the provisions of Rule 4A concerning the issuance of documents for availing Cenvat credit on banking and financial services, highlighting that technicalities should not impede legitimate credit claims.