9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (7) TMI 300X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y consolidated certificate is proof that the services covered by the said document have been received and accounted for in the books of account of the receiver . There is no dispute on the qualification of transportation service as an input service to the appellant under the Rules. Rule 3(1) of the Credit Rules permits a manufacturer of final product to take credit of the tax paid on any input service received by it. We note that the issue of certified RRs read with MCC and STTG being valid documents for availing credit is no longer res integra - The Tribunal in the case of M/S. JK CEMENT LTD. VERSUS CCE, UDAIPUR [ 2017 (12) TMI 82 - CESTAT NEW DELHI ] has held that The list of documents which are required are given in rule 9(1). It ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant appeal to assail the order in appeal dated 17.8.2020 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Bhopal. In the said order, the Commissioner (Appeals) had upheld the denial of Cenvat credit of service tax paid on rail freight. 2. The brief facts are that the appellant was engaged in the manufacture of cement, and availed the services of West Central Railway [WCR] division of Indian Railways, for transportation of their finished goods from the plant to their depots/Godowns/ Warehouses. With effect from 1.10.2012, transportation of goods by Rail was brought under the service tax net and Indian Railways charged and collected service tax on transportation services on the value of total freight, less abatement, as per Board s Circular no. 27/20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t for availment of disputed credit on the basis of certified copy of RRs. On appeal, the Commissioner(Appeals) vide order dated 19.11.2015, dismissed the appeal of the appellant, holding that the insertion of clause (fa) in Rule 9(1) would apply prospectively. The appellant filed an appeal before the Tribunal which vide its final order dated 03.11.2017, set aside the order in appeal dated 19.11.2015 and remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority with directions to examine the supporting documents submitted by the appellant and its eligibility for claiming such credit. The adjudicating authority after considering the submissions of the appellant, denied the CENVAT credit observing that STTG [Service Tax Certificate for transportation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he MCC/STTG contains all the requisite details/information in compliance to the proviso to Rule 9(2) of the Credit Rules read with Rule 4A of the Service Tax Rules. He also stated that the practice of availment of Cenvat credit on the basis of MCC was in line with the clarification issued by the Ministry of Railways (Railway Board) vide Rate Circular No. 27 dated 26.9.2012. 4.1 In support of his submissions, he placed reliance on the decision of the Gujarat High Court in the case of CCE, Vadodara II vs Steelco Gujarat Ltd [2010 (255) ELT (518) Guj.]. He further stated that the Courts have held that CENVAT credit availed on the strength of RRs photocopy authenticated by certificates issued by Railways are valid documents in terms of rule ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly consolidated certificate is proof that the services covered by the said document have been received and accounted for in the books of account of the receiver . We note that the Commissioner (Appeals) has not doubted the veracity of the MCCs STTG certificate submitted by the appellant in support of their claim. In order to satisfy the objection of the department, the appellant has once again placed on record the re-revised STTG certificate dated 31.12.2022 issued by WCR to authenticate the certified copy of RRs in accordance with law. A conjoint reading of the documents placed before us indicate that they contain the following details: (i) Serial number of the order. (ii) Name of the service provider. (iii) Registration no of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... utory records. We note that the admitted position is that the appellant availed taxable service for transporting inputs by Railways and did suffer service tax. With these admitted facts, the only point is whether or not documents evidencing the payments of service tax are in right format as per the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. We note that the government specifically inserted that documents issued by the Railways in the form of STTG also form eligible bases. The revenue viewed that these documents are valid only from the date of amendment. We are not in agreement with such proposition. The list of documents which are required are given in rule 9(1). It is also to be noted that the jurisdictional Asst Commissioner/Deputy Commissioner has the d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
