2016 (12) TMI 973 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal grants Cenvat credit to manufacturer after address defect dispute

M/s U.K. Paints Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of C. Ex. & S. Tax, Noida

The Tribunal allowed the appeal of a resin, paints, and varnish manufacturer against the disallowance of Cenvat credit due to a defect in the service ... CENVAT credit - denial on the ground that the address of the service provider given in the invoice is not their registered address as per the Registration Certificate - Held that: - From a plain reading of the proviso to Rule 9(2) of CCR, it is evident that discretion has been vested in the adjudicating authority, wherever there were some defects in the document or invoice of input service, et cetera like defect in particulars, it is provided that if the material particulars are contained in the invoice like the details of duty or service tax payable, description of the service, service tax registration number of the provider, and name and address of the provider of taxable service, then the adjudicating authority if satisfied that the goods or services covered by the said documents have been received and accounted for in the books of account of the receiver, he may allow the Cenvat credit - Further, the appellant have led evidences before the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) that the service provider have deposited the returns with the Department and have also annexed the challans indicating full payment of tax by the service provider - decided in favor of appellant-assessee. Issues:1. Disallowance of Cenvat credit due to a defect or change in address of the service provider on the invoice.2. Interpretation of Rule 9(1) and 9(2) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Rule 4A of the Service Tax Rules.Issue 1: Disallowance of Cenvat credit due to a defect or change in address of the service provider on the invoiceThe appellant, a manufacturer of resin, paints, and varnish, appealed against the disallowance of Cenvat credit amounting to Rs. 94,239 by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) Customs, Excise, and Service Tax, Noida. The disallowance was based on the ground that the address of the service provider on the invoice did not match their registered address as per the Registration Certificate. The issue revolved around whether Cenvat credit could be denied to the appellant due to a defect or change in the service provider's address on the invoice, as per the provisions of Rule 9(1) and 9(2) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Rule 4A of the Service Tax Rules. The Tribunal observed that the invoices issued from premises with an incorrect address were not proper documents for availing service tax credit under Rule 9 of CCR.Issue 2: Interpretation of Rule 9(1) and 9(2) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Rule 4A of the Service Tax RulesThe Tribunal analyzed Rule 9(2) of CCR, which stipulates that Cenvat credit cannot be taken unless all prescribed particulars are contained in the document. The rule provides discretion to the adjudicating authority in cases where there are defects in the document, allowing credit if essential details like duty or service tax payable, service description, service tax registration number of the provider, and provider's name and address are present. The Tribunal noted that there was no dispute regarding the receipt of service by the appellant and payment of service tax. Evidence presented indicated that the service provider had filed returns with the Department and made full tax payments, which the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) failed to consider. The Tribunal concluded that the appellant was entitled to the Cenvat credit of Rs. 94,239, setting aside the disallowance and penalty imposed by the Commissioner (Appeals).This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the issues of disallowance of Cenvat credit and the interpretation of relevant rules, providing a comprehensive overview of the Tribunal's decision.