9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 1086X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Service Tax Rules, which are valid documents in terms of Rule 9(1) (f) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 for availing Cenvat credit., it is opined that the denial of Cenvat Credit is not justified, more particularly when the impugned order had completely ignored provisions of Rule 4A of the Service Tax Rules and the Proviso to Rule 9(2) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. Availment of Cenvat Credit on the strength of xerox copy of invoice - HELD THAT:- In similar circumstances various courts/ Tribunals have decided the issue in favour of the Appellants and allowed Cenvat Credit - In the case of SHIVAM ELECTRICAL INDUSTRIES VERSUS UNION OF INDIA [ 2018 (2) TMI 816 - JAMMU AND KASHMIR HIGH COURT] it was held that The aforesaid Rule (Rule 9 of CCR) in our considered opinion nowhere provides that Cenvat credit cannot be availed on the basis of photocopy of the documents especially when the respondents have not disputed the correctness of the contents of the photocopies of the invoices produced by the petitioner. From the perusal of the certificate issued by the Superintendent, Customs and Central Excise, Range-III, Division-I, Ghaziabad, it is evident that the excise duty has been duly pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - towards credit availed on Certificates issued by M/s Indian Bank) and imposed equal penalty. Aggrieved, the Appellant has filed this appeal before this forum. 3. The main contentions of the Appellant as specified in the Grounds of Appeal have been summarised below: - i. That the impugned order failed to appreciate that credit was availed on original invoice and a photocopy was kept on record. It was averred that the denial of Cenvat Credit on the basis of carbon copy/ extra copy of invoices and imposition of penalty was not justified in view of the decision in the case of Cords Cable Industries Ltd. Vs CCE, Jaipur [2015 (320) ELT 155 (Tri.-Del.)]. ii. It was submitted that the head office of M/s Indian bank, Chennai was in possession of a centralised registration for service tax and were remitting service tax collected from service receivers on behalf of its various branches which in turn issued challans/ documents to the recipients of banking and Other Financial services for the purpose of availing Cenvat Credit. It was pointed out that the Statement of Service Tax issued to the Appellant by the Branches of M/s. Indian Bank at Mecheri and Coimbatore contained all the releva ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ated the averments in the Grounds of Appeal and further submitted that the CENVAT Credit cannot be denied solely on the ground that Original Invoices have not been produced for verification by relying on the decisions in: - a. Shivam Electrical Industries Vs. UOI [2018 (359) ELT 46 (J & K)] b. CCE, Raipur Vs. S.K.S. Ispat & Power Ltd. [2017 (4) GSTL 337 (Chhattisgarh)] b. Rathi Special Steels Ltd Vs. CCE Jaipur I [2017 (352) ELT 219 (Tri.-Del.)] a. Pepsico India Holding P. Ltd Vs. CCE Mumbai II [2017 (349) ELT 665 (Tri.-Mumbai)] 4.2 Further, the Ld. Counsel pointed out that the First Proviso to Rule 4A of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 has carved out an exception in the case of documents issued by a Banking Company or a Financial Institution or NBFC. The Proviso states that in case the provider of taxable service is a Banking company, an invoice, a bill or, challan as the case shall include any document, by whatever name called, whether or not serially numbered, and whether or not containing address of the person receiving taxable service. 4.3 The Ld. Counsel submitted that Rule 4 (2) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 permits a person liable to pay service tax on a taxable serv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d availed Cenvat credit of Rs.51,67,473/- on the basis of invalid/ineligible documents, which are therefore liable for recovery under Rule 14 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 (CCR) read with Section 11A(2) of Central Excise Act, 1944. It was pointed out that the Appellant had contravened the provisions of CCR with an intent to evade duty payment and hence the demand confirmed/ penalty imposed are justifiable. Hence it was prayed for dismissal of the appeals filed by the Appellant. 6. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides and also evidences available on records. 7. The issues which arise for decision in this appeal are whether the Appellant is eligible to avail Cenvat Credit on the invoices issued by Bank Branches and also xerox copies and whether the invocation of extended period is justified in the facts and circumstances of the case? 8. We find from the records, that the Department, based on an audit finding, had disallowed Cenvat credit of Rs.2,051/- for non-production of original documents by the Appellant and Cenvat Credit of Rs.51,65,423/- for non-registration of service provider i.e., Indian Bank and for non-production of original invoices. A Sho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r or not containing address of the person receiving taxable service but containing other information in such documents as required under this sub-rule:]" Rule 4 (2) is extracted below: - "RULE [4. Registration. -- (1) Every person liable for paying the service tax shall make an application to the [concerned Superintendent of Central Excise] in Form ST-1 for registration within a period of thirty days from the date on which the service tax under [section 66B] of the Finance Act, 1994 (32 of 1994) is levied : …….. [(2) Where a person, liable for paying service tax on a taxable service,- (i) provides such service from more than one premises or offices; or (ii) receives such service in more than one premises or offices; or, (iii) is having more than one premises or offices, which are engaged in relation to such service in any other manner, making such person liable for paying service tax, and has centralized billing system or centralized accounting system in respect of such service, and such centralized billing or centralized accounting systems are located in one or more premises, he may, at his option, register such premises or offices from where centralised ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on of the transaction/service, date of transaction, value of service, amount of Service Tax, period covered, ii. total amount of Service Tax, including Cesses, collected, iii.the name and address of Indian Bank Branch and Service Tax Registration No. as AAACI11607GST005 and, iv. the name and address of the service recipient. We also find that the head office of M/s Indian bank at Chennai is centrally registered with the service tax department for banking and Financial Services and were complying with the prescribed statutory formalities. As the Appellants submitted the Certificates/Statements of Service Tax collected issued by M/s Indian Bank from its Branches at Coimbatore and Mecheri referring to Centralized Accounting System at their Head Office which contain all the relevant particualrs required in terms of the proviso to Rule 4A of the Service Tax Rules, which are valid documents in terms of Rule 9(1) (f) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 for availing Cenvat credit., we are of the considered opinion that the denial of Cenvat Credit is not justified, more particularly when the impugned order had completely ignored provisions of Rule 4A of the Service Tax Rules and the Pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tax and Education Cess. Thus, the debit advices issued by the bank on the basis of which Cenvat credit has been taken, contain all the information which is required to be included in an invoice. Therefore, in my view, the debit advices have to be treated as valid documents for Cenvat credit. Just because these advices were not issued by the bank within a period of 15 days from the date of providing the service, the Cenvat credit cannot be denied to the appellant as, as held by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Vimal Enterprises (supra) the Cenvat credit cannot be denied to an assessee for faults for which he is not responsible. In view of this, the impugned order is not sustainable. The same is set aside. The appeal is allowed." (iii) In the case of Soham Motors Pvt. Limited Vs. CCE, Aurangabad [2015 (37) STR 1086 (Tri.-Mumbai)] it was held that: - "5. Having considered the rival contentions, I find that the documents satisfy the condition of Rule 9(2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules read with Rule 4A(i) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994, except minor clerical error. It is further evident from the show cause notice that no opportunity was given to the appellant to remove t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nvat Credit. (i) In the case of Shivam Electrical Industries Vs. UOI [2018 (359) E.L.T 46 (J & K)] it was held: - "7. The aforesaid Rule (Rule 9 of CCR) in our considered opinion nowhere provides that Cenvat credit cannot be availed on the basis of photocopy of the documents especially when the respondents have not disputed the correctness of the contents of the photocopies of the invoices produced by the petitioner. From the perusal of the certificate issued by the Superintendent, Customs and Central Excise, Range-III, Division-I, Ghaziabad, it is evident that the excise duty has been duly paid by the petitioner" (ii) In the case of CCE, Raipur Vs. S.K.S. Ispat & Power Ltd. [2017 (4) G.S.T.L. 337 (Chhattisgarh)], the Hon'ble High Court held as follows: "2. The fundamental issue raised before the CESTAT by the Department was that the adjudicating authority had given the benefit of Cenvat credit solely on the basis of photocopies of the documents. The Tribunal on the basis of the material and after hearing counsel for the parties including the departmental representative, confirmed that. In terms of the report from the Range Superintendent, Raipur, the Commissioner stood info ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
