9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 153X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Railway Authorities. The substantial benefit cannot be denied to the appellant only because certain procedural requirements as prescribed by the rules have not been followed in toto - all the particulars of service tax paid by the appellants for available and same has been certified by the concerned Railway Authorities, therefore, it will be travesty of the judgment if the Cenvat credit is denied to them only on such a flimsy ground. Credit allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Excise Appeals No. 51809 of 2018 and 54355 of 2015 - Final Order No. 53199-53200/2018 - Dated:- 15-10-2018 - Shri C.L. Mahar, Member (Technical) And Ms. Rachna Gupta, Member (Judicial) Shri Vivek Sharma, Advocate for the app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... same. The dispute in the present appeal relates to their eligibility to take credit based on documents, which the Revenue contents are not as per the provisions of Rule 9. Contesting the same, the appellants submitted that the documents are clear and specific and the service provider has given both individual documents as well as comprehensive consolidated certificates of discharging service tax on these input services. Even otherwise, the appellants pleaded that the Original Authority should have examined provisions of Rule 9 (2) and then on satisfying that all particulars required for taking credit are available in the basic documents submitted by the appellant, the credit should have been allowed. We are in agreement with the submissions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appeal is allowed by way of remand . 2. The second appeal i.e. E/54355 of 2018 is against the subsequent order passed by the Commissioner vide his order-in-original dated 24 th August, 2015. Since, the issue involved in both the appeals is the same, involving same facts of the matter and accordingly the same are being adjudicated hereunder by this common order. It is a matter of fact that Rule 9 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 prescribes certain documents and accounts for availing the Cenvat credit of input and input services as well as capital goods. However, under Rule 9 (2) which provides that :- (2) No CENVAT credit under sub-rule (1) shall be taken unless all the particulars as prescribed under the Central Excise Rules, 2002 or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sample of the certificate issued by the Railway Authorities is as below :- Sl. No. Details required as per the Rules Details as per the Document 1. Name, address and the registration number of such person (service provider) North Western Railway Headquarters, Jaipur Service Tax Registration No. AAAGF0008GSD001 2. Name and address of the person receiving taxable service ; Shree Cement Limited 3. Description and value of taxable service provided or agreed to be provided ; Rs.19,15,94,466/- 4. Service ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... certified by the concerned Railway Authorities, therefore, it will be travesty of the judgment if the Cenvat credit is denied to them only on such a flimsy ground. While holding the above-mentioned view, we also take shelter of this Tribunal s decision in the case of Gabriel India Ltd. vs. CCE ST, Indore 2017 (48) S.T.R. 492 (Tri. Del.). The relevant extract is reproduced here below :- 2. We have heard both the sides and perused the appeal records including written submissions. The learned Counsel for the appellant contested the original order on both the grounds : namely, that the debit note is a valid document for availing credit and it contained all the required details for due availment of credit. We have perused the impugn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ollowed by the Input Service Distributor. Debit note and its enclosures contained all the required details for a valid distribution of eligible credits. In this connection, reference can be made to decided cases :- (i) M/s. Emmes Metals Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Mumbai reported in 2016-TIOL-999-CESTAT-MUM; (ii) M/s. Mahanagar Gas Limited v. CCE, Mumbai-II reported in 2015-TIOL-1064-CESTAT-MUM; (iii) The Supreme Industries Ltd. v. CCE LTU, Mumbai reported in 2014-TIOL-115-CESTAT-MUM; and (iv) CCE, Indore v. M/s. Gwalior Chemicals Industries Ltd. reported in 2011-TIOL-1635-CESTAT-DEL = 2011 (274) E.L.T. 97 (Tribunal). 3. On perusal of the impugned order, we find the denial of credit to the appellant is not based on any su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
