9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (4) TMI 1156X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y invoices but these may be any documents, like bill or challan as issued in terms of Rule 4 (2) A of the Service Tax Rules etc. This particular Rule specifies the amount of information as is required in a particular documents for availment of Cenvat Credit. Thus any documents as required under Rule 4(2)A can be the documents under Rule 9 of Cenvat Credit Rules for entitlement of availing Cenvat Credit - it is held that denial of availment of Cenvat Credit on performa invoices was absolutely wrong. CENVAT Credit - Invoices issued in the name of Head Office instead of factory unit - HELD THAT:- The availment of income tax credit is the creature of statute and the amounts to a substantial benefit which can not be denied based upon the some procedural irregularity - Hon ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the case of COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CHD. VERSUS M/S STELKO STRIPS LTD. AND OTHERSS [ 2010 (3) TMI 68 - PUNJAB HARYANA HIGH COURT] while relying upon the earlier decision in the case of COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, LUDHIANA VERSUS RALSON INDIA LTD. [ 2005 (12) TMI 37 - PUNJAB HARYANA HIGH COURT] - The COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., DELHI-III, GURGAON VERSUS MYRON EL ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 22 - MRS RACHNA GUPTA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Shri Hemant Bajaj, Advocate for the Appellant Shri Ishwar Charan, Authorised Representative for the Department ORDER The appellants are engaged in manufacture of zinc concentrate, lead concentrate etc and are also engaged in providing /receiving goods transport agency service, legal consultancy service, manpower supply service, rent-a-cab service etc. During the course of Audit of records of the appellant Department observed that the appellant has wrongly availed Cenvat Credit on :- (1) Proforma invoice / invoice issued in the name of head office situated at Yashad Bhawan, Udaipur. (2) Those invoices not being the proper documents in terms of Rule 9 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004; (3) On the invoice of Rampal Sahu for the service of providing food facility to the Police Guards ; the said service not being eligible input service under Rule (ii) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002; (4) Availed Cenvat Credit in excess of tax paid on invoice 2. Based on the said observations that the Cenvat Credit amounting to ₹ 2,64,442/- was proposed to be recovered from the appellant along with the interest and proportionate p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n that the payment was made to Shri Rampal Sahu against the impugned invoices which were actually for hiring of crane from Shri Rampal Sahu. The credit of those invoices is alleged to have been wrongly denied. Reliance has been placed on 1. CCE, Jaipur-I, Bharti Hexacom Ltd. [2018 (12) GSTL 123 (Raj)]; 2. CGST CE, Jaipur vs Genus Power Infrastructure Ltd. [2020 (2) TMI 36- CESTAT, NEW DELHI.]; 3. Hindustan Zinc Ltd. Vs CGST [2019 (11) TMI 229 CESTAT-NEW DELHI)] 8. The allegations of availing excess credit have also been vehemently denied with the submissions that actually there were two separate invoices on which credit was taken which are mentioned to have been annexed in the appeal paper book which clearly shows that the invoices and Service Tax was correctly mentioned in each of the entry which is co-relatable to the corresponding invoices. It was only an inadvertent mistake due to which correct details of invoices dated 28.6.2017 relating to entry at S.No. 867 was mentioned in the records of the appellants in place of entry at S.No. 865. It is submitted that those clarifications were submitted before the Authorities Below but still have not been considered. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in sub rule but any similar document which may provide all the statutory particulars that the same shall be admissible for permitting availment of Cenvat Credit to the manufacture or service provider. Also the documents required under the Rule 9 are not confined to merely invoices but these may be any documents, like bill or challan as issued in terms of Rule 4 (2) A of the Service Tax Rules etc. This particular Rule specifies the amount of information as is required in a particular documents for availment of Cenvat Credit. Thus any documents as required under Rule 4(2)A can be the documents under Rule 9 of Cenvat Credit Rules for entitlement of availing Cenvat Credit. I draw my support from the decisions of this Tribunal in the case of CCE Indore vs Grasim Industries reported as [2011 (24) STR 691(Tri-Del)] and Emmes Metals Pvt Ltd. vs CCE, Appeal No. E/1015/2011 decided on 9.3.2016. There is no denial that entire information as required under Rule 9 was available in the performa invoices on which credit was availed by appellant. Hence, it is held that denial of availment of Cenvat Credit on performa invoices was absolutely wrong. (ii) Invoices issued in the name of Head Offi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he part of the adjudicating authority. It is held that the credit on this ground has also wrongly been denied. (iv) Excess availment of Cenvat Credit on the invoice dated 28.6.2017 issued by Sandvik Asia Coming to the issue of excess availment of Cenvat Credit on invoices dated 28.6.2017 issued by Sandvik Asia, it is observed that the appellant had demonstrated that there were two different separate invoices on which credit was taken as follows: Entry No. Invoice No. Invoice date Credit available Invoice Amount Credit taken 865 9700184 15.6.2017 5,41,071 44,44,512 5,41,071 867 9700255 28.6.2017 4,99,945 41,06,690 4,99,945 On perusal of the above, it is abundantly clear that there are two separate entries vide which credit was availed. Entry No. 865 actually pertains to Invoice No. 9700184 dated 15.6.2017 where the admissible Cenvat Credit is & ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
