9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (8) TMI 1100X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ny person who provides taxable service, on completion of the said service, shall issue an invoice or bill not later than thirty days from the date of completion of such taxable service or receipt of payment, whichever is earlier. In the present case, apparently the invoices were issued in the name of other plants of the appellant instead of being in favour of appellant. But it is also an admitted fact that the invoices were found accounted in the books of appellant, NEI Jaipur. Revenue has produced no evidence to prove that the units whose name were mentioned on the invoices had accounted those invoices in their books of accounts. Revenue has also failed to produce any evidence to prove that the input services were received by other units of NEI that the Jaipur unit. The burden was of the Revenue/department. The deficiency noticed in the invoices is held to not be enough to deny the benefit of Cenvat credit in view of the proviso to Rule 9(2) of the Credit Rules. The invoices on record have all such details as mentioned above. Inasmuch as in the present case, the invoices with incorrect address issued by the input service providers contain all the requisite particulars as required ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efore this Tribunal. 2. I have heard Shri Dhruv Tiwari and Ms. Aarushi Prabhakar, learned Advocates for the appellant and Shri Rohit Issar, learned Authorized Representative for the department. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant foremost has raised the jurisdiction issue as the authority issuing show cause notice is different from adjudicating authority. He has submitted that the appellant has correctly availed Cenvat credit of Rs.12,62,017/- in terms of Rule 9(1) of the Credit Rules and Rule 9(2) ibid. In this regard, it is submitted that the invoices issued by the service providers contain all the details as specified under Rule 9(1)(f) of the Credit Rules, read with Rule 4A(1) of the Service Tax Rules. The only objection raised in the show cause notice and endorsed by both the lower authorities below, is that the invoices do not contain the correct address of the Appellant and thus, these invoices fail to satisfy the requirement of Rule 4A(1) of the Service Tax Rules. In this regard, it is submitted by the learned counsel that no dispute has been raised in the present proceedings regarding receipt of eligible input services as well as tax paid on such services. Once there is n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d to be allowed. 4. While rebutting on the issue of jurisdiction on the ground of show cause notice being issued by Assistant Commissioner, CGST Audit, Jaipur but adjudicated by Deputy Commissioner, CGST Division, Jaipur but learned Departmental Representative has referred to Circular No. 985/09/2014-CX dated 22.09.2014 Para 5.3 thereof. While submitting on merits, learned Departmental Representative has mentioned that on verification of sample invoices submitted by the appellant it was found that invoices were not part of Annexure-A of show cause notice/audit objection. Other sample invoices submitted by appellant doesn't seems genuine. Appellant is admitting that invoices were issued in the name of other plants/unit of the appellant. Hence, name and address of the person receiving the taxable service was not of NEI, Jaipur, the appellant but to other plants of NEI at Vadodara, Newai, Manesar etc. the Cenvat credit is rightly been denied. 4.1 As per Rule 9(5) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, burden of proof regarding the admissibility of the Cenvat credit shall lie upon the manufacturer or provider of output service taking such credit. From O-I-O and O-I-A, it appears that going ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bility of Executive Commissioner. 5.2 In view of this, it is clear that the aforesaid allegation challenging the jurisdiction is not sustainable. The adjudication authority despite being different from one which issued the said show cause notice is held to have the competent jurisdiction. 5.3 Now coming to the merits of the present case, it is observed that Commissioner (Appeals) has confirmed the demand based on following findings: (i) I find that the audit during the audit observed that the documents on the basis of which the assessee has availed the credit were not meant for them, means these documents are not having the address of the assessee and these were for their other plants. (ii) The assessee has submitted some of the invoices issued by M/s. RITES. It has been observed that the service tax amount has not been mentioned against the Total tax (GST) . Moreover, these invoices pertains to year 2015 when the GST (Goods and Service Tax) was not implemented, therefore the same appears to be not genuine and the assessee got these documents after conducting audit. (iii) I find that neither the assessee submitted ER-1 showing that the said duty discharged by them nor challan beari ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under the Central Excise Rules, 2002 or the Service Tax Rules, 1994, as the case may be, are contained in the said document: Provided that if the said document does not contain all the particulars but contains the details of duty or service tax payable, description of the goods or taxable service, assessable value, Central Excise or Service Tax registration number of the person issuing the invoice, as the case may be, name and address of the factory or warehouse or premises of first or second stage dealers or provider of output service, and the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise or the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, as the case may be, is satisfied that the goods or services covered by the said document have been received and accounted for in the books of the account of the receiver, he may allow the CENVAT credit: 5.5 In view of above, an invoice issued by the service provider is sufficient to prove the admissibility of Cenvat credit of input services. Further, reference is also made to Rule 4A of the Service Tax Rules, which provides that any person who provides taxable service, on completion of the said service, shall issue an invoice or bill not later than thirty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the input services were received by other units of NEI that the Jaipur unit. The burden was of the Revenue/department. I draw my support from the decision in the Case of Radha Madhar Corporation Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Centra Excise Daman reported in 2012 (284) ELT 369. 5.9 I further observe that appellant had placed on record the Chartered Accountant (CA) certificate but the authorities below have not considered the same. It is settled law that books of account, balance sheet and CA certificate are sufficient admissible documents for the proof of contents of the concerned document unless rebutted. I draw my support from the decision in the case of Akasaka Electronics Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai reported as 2016 (343) ELT 362. Their no rebuttal produced by the department/Revenue. 5.10 In the light of above discussion, the deficiency noticed in the invoices is held to not be enough to deny the benefit of Cenvat credit in view of the proviso to Rule 9(2) of the Credit Rules. The invoices on record have all such details as mentioned above. Inasmuch as in the present case, the invoices with incorrect address issued by the input service providers contain all the requisit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
