9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 65X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... SSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE VERSUS M/S. JSW STEELS LTD., THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, [ 2017 (8) TMI 592 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] held that CENVAT credit cannot be denied to the service recipient on the ground that invoice was not issued by the service provider. In Usha Martin Limited by relying on M/S DELPHI AUTOMOTIVE SYSTEMS (P) LIMITED VERSUS CCE, NOIDA [ 2013 (12) TMI 156 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] this tribunal has held that for the period prior to 01.04.2011, as Rule 9(1) did not make any distinction between invoice or supplementary invoice in respect of services, therefore, the term invoice in Rule 9(1)(f) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 has to be treated including supplementary invoice . Conclusion - There is no dispute regarding the payment duty on the supplementary invoices. Also, there is also no dispute regarding the receipt of input services and using the same towards manufacture of dutiable goods. Thus, CENVAT credit cannot be denied to the Appellant on the basis of procedural irregularities, if any. The impugned order is set aside - appeal allowed. - SHRI R. MURALIDHAR, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND SHRI K. ANPAZHAKAN, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Shri Shovit Betal, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was found that the additional invoices had been issued by the service providers much after the period of 14 days of completion of service. Hence, such invoice cannot be considered as invoices prescribed under Rule 4A and consequently, such invoices become inadmissible document for availing CENVAT credit, Both Rule 4A as well as Rule 9 uses the word shall , hence these are mandatory provisions, There is no express provision in the CENVAT Credit Rules for availment of credit based on supplementary invoice issued by a service provider, whereas for a manufacturer there is an express provision i.e., Rule 9(1)(b), this shows the intention of the legislature to deny credit in case of supplementary invoices issued by service providers. 3. Regarding the denial of Cenvat credit on the ground that the additional invoices were issued by the service providers much after the period of 14 days of completion of service, the appellant submits that the issue is no more res integra as this Tribunal in Usha Martin Limited vs. Commissioner of Central Excise Service Tax, Jamshedpur, 2023 (5) TMI 719 CESTAT Kolkata by relying on Hon ble Madras High Court s ruling in JSW Steels Ltd., 2018 (8) GSTL 153 (M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce was not issued by the service provider. The relevant portion of the said order is reproduced below:- 7. On the first issue whether cenvat credit is admissible to a service recipient if an invoice has been issued by the service provider much later than 14 days after the date of completion of service/receipt of payment as prescribed in Rule 4A(1) of the ST Rules,we find that the issue in dispute is no longer res integra as it stands settled in favour of the Appellant by decision of the Hon ble Madras High Court in Commissioner of Central Excise, Salem vs. JSW Steels Ltd., 2018 (8) G.S.T.L. 153 (Mad.). The Hon ble High Court in Para 15.5 and 15.6 has observed that: 15.5 Having said so, we notice that Rule 4A of the Service Tax Rules, 1994, inter alia, at the relevant time, required the provider of taxable service, to issue, not later than fourteen days from the date of provisioning of taxable service, an invoice, bill or challan. The details, which were to be provided in such an invoice, bill or challan, are also set out in the Rule. 15.6 A bare perusal of the Rule would show that the obligation, in that behalf, essentially rests on the service provider. The Rule does not advert to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s, the term invoice mentioned in Clauses (f) and (g) of Rule 9(1) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 has to be treated including supplementary invoice, as during the period of dispute, with regard to service tax payment, the Rule 9(1) did not make any distinction between invoice and supplementary invoice . . 5.2. that the ruling in Usha Martin Limited (supra) has been followed by the Hon ble CESTAT, Allahabad in M/s. Hindalco Industries Ltd vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Allahabad, 2023 (8) TMI 1316 CESTAT ALLAHABAD . The Hon ble Tribunal in addition to reiterating the observation made in Usha Martin Limited (supra) held that Rule 9(1)(b) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 cannot be relied upon to deny CENVAT Credit on supplementary invoices. The relevant portion of the ruling is as follows: 4.4 From the perusal of the above rule it is quite evident that this rule provides for the documents against which the appellant could have taken the CENVAT credit. Whereas sub rule 1 (a) and (b) are with reference to the documents that are in respect of the clearance and payment of Central Excise Duty/ Countervailing duty, sub rule 1 (e), (f) and (g) prescribes the documents against which the CEN ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
