9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (6) TMI 841 - CESTAT AHMEDABADCENVAT Credit - input service - C F Agent service - denial also on the ground of discrepancy in documents under Rule 9. CENVAT Credit - input service - C F Agent service - place of removal - HELD THAT - In the case of C F Agent service, it is very much covered under definition of Rule 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 even, before and after amendment of 11.07.2014. Therefore, the credit during the period involved in the present case cannot be denied on the ground that such service was used beyond the place of removal - credit allowed. CENVAT Credit - denial also on the ground of discrepancy in documents under Rule 9 - HELD THAT - As per the claim of the appellant, they have availed Cenvat Credit on the input service distributors invoice. They have also given a statement showing such invoices, if this be so than the discrepancy in the debit note will not affect the entitlement of Cenvat Credit on ISD invoices to the appellant. However, it appears that the Adjudicating Authority has not verified the ISD invoices and assumed that Cenvat credit was availed on the debit note. As regard the discrepancy in the debit note, the same is not relevant at the end of the appellant. If there is any discrepancy it is the jurisdictional Officer of the input service distributor to take necessary action against the head office of the appellant i.e. input service distributor - this availment of Cenvat Credit on ISD invoices and correctness thereof needs to be verified by the Adjudicating Authority. Appeal allowed in part and part matter on remand. Issues involved:
1. Eligibility of input service credit on C&F Agent service on merit. 2. Denial of credit on the ground of documents under Rule 9. Eligibility of input service credit on C&F Agent service: The appellant argued that the C&F Agent service should be considered admissible as it was availed up to the place of removal, where goods were sold. The Tribunal agreed, stating that the place of the C&F Agent is a place of removal as per Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1994. They cited various judgments to support their decision and held that C&F Agent service falls under the definition of Rule 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Therefore, the credit for the service cannot be denied on the grounds of being used beyond the place of removal. Denial of credit on the ground of documents under Rule 9: Regarding the discrepancy in the Cenvat document, the appellant claimed that they availed the credit on input service distribution invoices, not on the debit note. The Tribunal found that the Adjudicating Authority did not verify the ISD invoices and wrongly assumed that the credit was availed on the debit note. They stated that any discrepancy in the debit note is the responsibility of the input service distributor, and the correctness of availing credit on ISD invoices should be verified by the Adjudicating Authority. The Tribunal remanded the case for a fresh order specifically on the verification of ISD invoices. The appeals were allowed by way of remand for further verification and assessment of the issues raised.
|
