9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 1383X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... entertained as to the transactions, to deny cenvat credit availed by the assessee on its payment to NPCI - Hence, we are unable to subscribe to the views of the Ld. Commissioner and hence, we are setting aside the same. Cenvat on statements of service provider - Held that:- The service providers include private parties which is not as per Rule 9 (2) of CCR, 2004 read with Rule 4A of Service Tax Rules, 1994, lacking even the minimum necessary details. There is no whisper about any agreement with the parties, but, however, considering the fact that the assessee is a banker, we find it appropriate to give one more opportunity to prove its case, by producing bills/invoices and not just invoice of invoices. The assessee should co-operate wit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 (CCR); that the assessee had not filed the cenvat credit return as per Form and in Rule 9(9) of CCR; that the assessee had failed to file cenvat credit return in the prescribed format along with its ST-3 return for the period October, 2005 to September, 2010 as per Rule 9 (9) of CCR and Rule 5 of STR, 2002 and that therefore it appeared to the Revenue that the assessee had availed irregular credit of service tax and capital goods credit without any valid original duty paying documents as per Rule 9 and 4 (7) of CCR, etc. 2. The appellant filed its reply interalia contending that it had filed its ST-3 return and also cenvat credit return based on the cenvat documents; that they had filed Form under Rule 5 (4) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orm specified and in Rule 9 (9) of CCR giving the complete details as specified therein; that the assessee had not furnished the Cenvat credit documents for verification that the burden of proof was always on the appellant; that the appellant did not keep the basic documents properly and there was an inordinate delay in producing such documents for verification, etc. He finally concluded that the appellant s claim was correct with regard to credit availment of ₹ 13,10,41,895/- which was also verified by the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner, he also accepted the excess amount erroneously shown in the worksheet to the extent of ₹ 77,43,098/- but, however, confirmed the demand with regard to the balance of ₹ 4,15,00,019/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le 4A of the STR,1994, applies, which reads as under:- 4A. Taxable service to be provided or credit to be distributed on invoice, bill or challan - (1) Every person providing taxable service[, not later than [thirty] days from the date of [completion] of such taxable service or receipt of any payment towards the value of such taxable service, whichever is earlier, shall issue an invoice, a bill or, as the case may be, a challan signed by such person or a person authorized by him in respect such taxable service provided or [agreed]to be provided and such invoice, bill or, as the case may be, challan shall be serially numbered and shall contain the following, namely :- (i) the name, address and the registration number of such person; (ii) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or smooth operation of member banks regarding transaction through credit or debit cards or such other instruments, to the customers who perform transactions through ATMs for specified services. The agreement also provides for the NPCI to raise invoices on member bank and it is that payment made by the appellant for which the NPCI has only issued a e-statement that has triggered the first issue. From a perusal of the statement issued by NPCI, we note that it is a self-contained document incorporating all the mandatory requirements of proviso to Rule 4A and in any case, NPCI is not a private body just to ignore its statement; as to the nature of service, there is an agreement in place. 5.4 It is not the case of the Revenue that NPCI has no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... K (HC) 2018 (2) TMI 816 2. Pepsico India Holding Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cestat, Mumbai 2016 (10) TMI 1091 3. Integra Software Services Pvt Ltd. Vs. Cestat Chen. 2018 (10) TMI 705 4. Minda Sai Ltd. Vs. Cestat Chennai 2018 (1) TMI 164 Denial of cenvat credit on the photocopy of the invoices is not justified and hence the same is set aside. IV. Cenvat Credit where no documents furnished. 5.7 With regard to denial of balance cenvat credit we find that no documents were furnished and hence we do not propose to interfere with the findings of the lower authority. 6. Appeal is therefore treated as partly allowed, on the above terms. (Order pronounced in the open Court on 22.02.2019) - - TaxTMI - TMITax - Service Tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
