2023 (3) TMI 230 - AT - Central Excise

Recovery of irregularly availed Cenvat Credit - ISD invoices did not contain the requisite details as required in terms of Rule 4A of Service Tax Rules, 1994 - No input services covered in the said ISD invoices were received by the appellant unit - credit transferred amount included a portion of credit transferred back by M/s. Pricol Ltd., Plant-I to Pricol ISD Registrant which was subsequently redistributed by the ISD registrant to the appellant unit and such credit is not permissible to be transferred by the ISD to the appellant in terms of Rule 7 of CCR, 2004. HELD THAT - The Hon ble Tribunal in COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, SALEM VERSUS PRICOL LTD. 2012 (9) TMI 866 - CESTAT CHENNAI have already decided that input service credit when distributed by the ISD, cannot be held as inadmissible on the pretext that such invoices did not contain all the particulars as required in terms of Rule 4A of CCR, 2004, when it was possible for the department to verify all the input service invoices on the basis of which the credit has been accumulated by ISD. It is seen that the proceedings initiated against M/s. Pricol Limited, Plant-I, Coimbatore, on the issue of retransfer of ISD credit to M/s. Pricol Ltd., ISD was finalized by this Hon ble Tribunal in M/S. PRICOL LTD. (PLANT I) , M/S. PRICOL LTD. VERSUS THE COMMISSIONER OF G.S.T. CENTRAL EXCISE, COIMBATORE COMMISSIONERATE 2019 (2) TMI 25 - CESTAT CHENNAI where it was held that it is evident that M/s. Pricol Ltd., Plant-I has only returned/reversed the exact quantum of Credit that was transferred to it in the first place by the M/s. Pricol Ltd., ISD. Such return/reversal has not enlarged the quantum of Credit that has been availed nor has there been any financial injury caused to the exchequer. This is then only a revenue neutral situation. Appeal allowed - decided in favour of appellant.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of ISD invoices lacking requisite details under Rule 4A of Service Tax Rules, 1994.
2. Non-receipt of input services by the appellant unit.
3. Permissibility of credit transfer back to ISD and subsequent redistribution under Rule 7 of CCR, 2004.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of ISD Invoices Lacking Requisite Details:
The appellant, M/s. Pricol Limited, was denied Cenvat Credit on the basis that the ISD invoices did not contain the requisite details as mandated by Rule 4A of the Service Tax Rules, 1994. The appellant argued that due to the high volume of invoices, the detailed information was maintained in an annexure and ISD register, which were provided to the adjudicating authority. The Tribunal had previously ruled in favor of the appellant in similar cases, stating that as long as the department could verify the input service invoices, the credit should not be denied on procedural grounds. The Tribunal reiterated that the absence of details in the invoices themselves, when supplemented by annexures, does not invalidate the credit.

2. Non-receipt of Input Services by the Appellant Unit:
The appellant contended that Rule 7 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, did not require the input services to be received by the unit availing the credit. The rule only mandated that the credit distributed should not exceed the service tax paid and should not be distributed to units exclusively engaged in exempted goods/services. The Tribunal agreed, citing the Karnataka High Court's decision in Ecof Industries Pvt. Ltd., which held that there is no requirement for one-to-one correlation between the services received and the credit availed by different units.

3. Permissibility of Credit Transfer Back to ISD and Subsequent Redistribution:
The appellant's Plant-I had returned excess Cenvat credit to the ISD, which was then redistributed to other units, including the appellant unit. The Tribunal had previously ruled in favor of the appellant in a similar case, stating that there is no prohibition in law against such reversals and redistributions. The Tribunal emphasized that this process did not result in any financial loss to the exchequer and was a revenue-neutral situation. The Tribunal upheld that the credit could be returned and redistributed, as there were no specific provisions barring such actions.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that all issues raised in the appeal were already settled in favor of the appellant in previous decisions. The appeal was allowed with consequential relief, affirming the validity of ISD invoices supplemented by annexures, the non-requirement of service receipt by the credit-availing unit, and the permissibility of credit reversals and redistributions. The order was pronounced in the open court on 02.03.2023.