9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (4) TMI 813 - AT - Central ExciseCENVAT Credit - transportation of goods by Indian Railways based on railway receipts - Rule 9 of the CENVAT Credit Rules 2004 - HELD THAT - It is observed that the Appellant has been availing CENVAT Credit in respect of transportation of goods by Indian Railways in accordance with Rule 9 of the CENVAT Credit Rules 2004 on the basis of railway receipts issued by the Indian Railways. With effect from 27.08.2014 sub-rule (fa) has been inserted in Rule 9 (1) of the CENVAT Credit Rules 2004. This certificate is an additional document prescribed for allowing the CENVAT Credit. That does not mean that railway receipts which contain all the necessary details required for availing the Credit on the basis of which the Appellant had availed the credit cannot be considered as a document for availing CENVAT Credit. It is observed that even after the introduction of sub-rule (fa) in Rule 9 (1) of the CENVAT Credit Rules 2004 railway receipts containing all the relevant factual details continue to be a relevant document for availment of credit. The STTG Certificate issued by the Railways has been prescribed as a document for availing credit with effect from 27.08.2014. However railway receipts which contain all details as prescribed under Rule 9 of the CENVAT Credit Rules 2004 continue to be a relevant document for availment of credit. In the present case the Appellant has availed the credit on the basis of railway receipts which contained all details as required under Rule 9 of the CENVAT Credit Rules 2004 for availing the CENVAT Credit. Accordingly the Appellant is eligible for availing the credit amounting to Rs.15, 86, 077/- - the impugned order is set aside. Demand of interest on the amount of Rs.1, 16, 54, 325/- - HELD THAT - The said credit has been allowed by the ld. adjudicating authority on the basis of the STTG Certificate furnished by the Appellant. Thus there is no irregularity in the availment of such credit. Accordingly the demand of interest on the credit allowed is not sustainable. Consequently the demand of interest on the amount of Rs.1, 16, 54, 325/- allowed as credit in the adjudication order. Conclusion - i) The CENVAT Credit amounting to Rs.15, 86, 077/- availed in respect of transportation of goods by Indian Railways on the basis of railway receipts is allowed. ii) No interest is liable to be paid by the Appellant in respect of the amount of credit of Rs.1, 16, 54, 325/- which was allowed in the Order-in-Original. Appeal disposed off.
1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The core legal issue considered in this judgment is the eligibility of M/s. Jai Balaji Industries Limited (the "Appellant") to avail CENVAT Credit for transportation of goods by Indian Railways based on railway receipts, in light of the amendment to Rule 9 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, which introduced the requirement for a Service Tax Certificate for Transportation of Goods by Rail (STTG Certificate) as a necessary document for availing such credit. 2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents The legal framework revolves around the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, specifically Rule 9, which prescribes the documents required for availing CENVAT Credit. An amendment effective from August 27, 2014, introduced sub-rule (fa) to Rule 9(1), mandating the STTG Certificate as a necessary document for availing credit for transportation of goods by rail. The Tribunal referenced the case of JSW Steel Ltd. v. Commissioner of C.G.S.T., Navi Mumbai, where it was held that railway receipts, containing all necessary details, could still be considered valid documents for availing CENVAT Credit, despite the amendment. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning The Tribunal interpreted that the introduction of the STTG Certificate as a document for availing CENVAT Credit did not invalidate railway receipts that contain all necessary details as per Rule 9. The Tribunal emphasized that Rule 9 is procedural and subservient to Rule 3, which determines the admissibility of CENVAT Credit. Thus, if the requirements of Rule 3 are satisfied, credit cannot be denied based on procedural requirements of Rule 9. Key Evidence and Findings The Appellant availed CENVAT Credit based on railway receipts, which contained all required details under Rule 9. The Tribunal noted that the Appellant had subsequently produced the STTG Certificate for a portion of the credit, and for the remaining amount, the railway receipts were deemed sufficient documentation. Application of Law to Facts The Tribunal applied the legal principles from the JSW Steel Ltd. case and the Essel Propack Ltd. case to determine that the railway receipts used by the Appellant, which contained all necessary details, were valid for availing CENVAT Credit. The Tribunal found no irregularity in the Appellant's credit availed on the basis of these documents. Treatment of Competing Arguments The Tribunal considered the Revenue's argument that the absence of the STTG Certificate invalidated the credit. However, it concluded that the procedural requirement of having an STTG Certificate does not override the substantive right to credit when all necessary details are present in the railway receipts. Conclusions The Tribunal concluded that the Appellant was eligible to avail CENVAT Credit amounting to Rs.15,86,077/- based on railway receipts. It also concluded that no interest was payable on the credit of Rs.1,16,54,325/- already allowed by the adjudicating authority. 3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS Preserve Verbatim Quotes of Crucial Legal Reasoning The Tribunal held: "I find that this certificate is an additional document prescribed for allowing the CENVAT Credit. That does not mean that railway receipts, which contain all the necessary details required for availing the Credit, on the basis of which the Appellant had availed the credit, cannot be considered as a document for availing CENVAT Credit." Core Principles Established The principle that procedural requirements, such as the introduction of new documentation requirements, should not invalidate the substantive right to credit when all necessary details are present in existing documents was reinforced. Final Determinations on Each Issue The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the CENVAT Credit availed by the Appellant based on railway receipts. It also set aside the demand for interest on the credit of Rs.1,16,54,325/- that was previously allowed, affirming that no interest was due.
|
