9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (9) TMI 456X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he registration numbers of service providers along with other details. Therefore, the obligation to provide registration numbers is unequivocally fulfilled. This fact has not been disputed in the impugned orders - Additionally, reliance is placed on the case of M/S RAJENDER KUMAR ASSOCIATESS VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX, DELHI-II [ 2020 (11) TMI 621 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] where it was held that once the requirement of relevant rules for issuance of invoices is met, credit cannot be disallowed on the ground that the ISD was not registered. The mandate to obtain ISD registration is not prescribed in law for distribution, and thus, denying the Credit based on allegation that the New Delhi unit was not registered as an ISD unit for three invoices lacks statutory backing and should not impede the Appellant s vested rights. Extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- Section 11A (1) of the Central Excise Act states that the demand could be raised against the Assessee in cases of default only within a period of one year. The proviso extended the normal period of limitation only in cases where there is fraud, suppression, or misstatement of facts on the part of the Assessee. The Appella ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Only few of the invoices of the service providers referred in an invoice was disputed. For example, only one invoice of J.B. Carriers and Movers P. Ltd providing GTA service appearing at Serial No.75 of the ISD Invoice No.1 dated 25.07.2007 has been disputed. No other invoice covered by this ISD invoice dated 25.07.2007 has been disputed. Similar is the position in respect of other ISD invoices. Invoices of Two types of service providers were disputed in audit (i) GTA Service providers, where the Appellant paid the service tax on reverse charge basis irrespective of the fact whether the service provider was registered or not; (ii) banking services. After about a period of 3 years from the date the audit report was made available to the Department, a Show Cause Notice [SCN] dated 16.01.2012 was issued as to why:- I. The Cenvat credit amounting to Rs.2,16,736/- (Rupees Two Lac Sixteen Thousands Seven Hundreds Thirty Six only) wrongly availed during the year 2008-09 2009-10 should not be demanded and recovered from them under Rule 14 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 by invoking extended period; II. Interest at applicable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Appellant is wrong, that the invoices were not provided by the Department. In fact, it was responsibility of the Appellant to provide justification in respect of the invoices which were found invalid for taking Cenvat credit. From Order-in-Original, it is clear that those invoices were identifiable and have been discussed in the body of the Order. The Adjudicating Authority has given their observation, that some invoices do not contain the service tax no., while some of them contain wrong STC No. I find that the Appellant in support of their claim have submitted that these invoices were issued by them as Input Service Distributor from Delhi Branch and thus they have availed Cenvat Credit on the strength of the same. Thus, the submissions of the Appellant is contradictory to each other. On one hand, they are contending that the invoices considered inadmissible by the audit party is unidentifiable and on the other hand, they contending that the same were issued by Delhi branch as Input Service Distributor, Thus, I find that the Department has correctly demanded the inadmissible Cenvat credit from the Appellant under Rule 14 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. 6.4. The Appellant has sub ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly if the audit party would have examined and looked into the ISD invoice. Therefore, it is a perverse finding that such invoices were now presented before the adjudication and not before the Authorities at earlier stages. In any case, such invoices were before the Adjudicating Authority, so, he was bound to allow the credit based on such ISD invoices. The SCN has not specified the documents, which were deficient. The Appellant again produced all the documents in the form of ISD invoices on which credit was taken. 6. Learned Departmental Authorized Representative justified the impugned order and prayed that the appeal filed by the Appellant be dismissed being devoid of any merits. 7. Heard both the sides and perused the appeal records. 8. I find that the dispute in the present appeal is regarding eligibility of Cenvat credit on the invoices issued by ISD. I find that the first Appellate Authority has not disputed the veracity of the fact that the credit was availed on the ISD invoices, but again went on the fact that the Adjudicating Authority has given the observation that some do not contain the service tax no. [registration number] while some of them contain the wrong STC No. It ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 305 (Tri- Kolkata). 4. CCE Vs. Dashion Ltd. reported at 2016 (41) S.T.R. 884 (Guj.). 10. I find that the Appellant was claiming the Cenvat credit on the basis of ISD invoices which were issued by their Delhi office and the Delhi office was registered with the Service Tax Department for issuing such invoices. Thus, the dispute, if any, regarding availment of credit is to be taken at the end of the ISD and not at the end of the Appellant, who is merely a recipient of such credit. Further reliance is placed on:- a) Mafatlal Industries Ltd. vs. Commr. Of C. EX. ST, Ahmedabad 2020 (43) GSTL 562 (Tri- Ahmd.). b) United Phosphorus Ltd. vs. Commissioner of C. EX., Surat-II 2013 (30) STR 509(Tri- Ahmd.). c) Castrol India Limited vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, VAPI 2013(291) ELT 469(Tri- Ahmd.). Section 11A (1) of the Central Excise Act states that the demand could be raised against the Assessee in cases of default only within a period of one year. The proviso extended the normal period of limitation only in cases where there is fraud, suppression, or misstatement of facts on the part of the Assessee. The Appellant has declared all the relevant details pertaining to availment of credi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
