TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal denies cenvat credit due to non-compliance with statutory rules. Invoice authenticity and time limits rejected.</h1> <h3>M/s. Cameron (Singapore) PTE Ltd. Versus Additional Commissioner of Service Tax, Jodhpur</h3> M/s. Cameron (Singapore) PTE Ltd. Versus Additional Commissioner of Service Tax, Jodhpur - TMI Issues:1. Availing of cenvat credit on inadmissible documents.2. Proper documents for availing cenvat credit.3. Applicability of circular on invoice authenticity.4. Time limitation for the show cause notice.Issue 1: Availing of cenvat credit on inadmissible documents:The appellant was found to have wrongly availed cenvat credit on inadmissible documents during a specific period. The Department proposed recovery along with interest and penalty, which was confirmed in the Order-in-original. The appellant contended that the credit was correctly availed based on proper invoices, meeting the requirements of Rule 9 of the Cenvat Credit Rules. However, the tribunal found that the invoices were not issued in the appellant's name, leading to the denial of cenvat credit due to statutory mandates.Issue 2: Proper documents for availing cenvat credit:The tribunal analyzed Rule 9 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, which mandates specific documents for availing cenvat credit. The rule makes it mandatory to furnish documents with prescribed particulars to claim the credit. Despite the appellant's arguments that services were received in India, the invoices were not in their name, leading to the denial of credit. The tribunal emphasized the mandatory nature of the rule and the importance of invoices being issued in the name of the credit claimant.Issue 3: Applicability of circular on invoice authenticity:The appellant relied on a circular regarding invoice authenticity and argued that corrections were made in the invoices. However, the tribunal found no certification of these corrections by the service provider. The tribunal also noted that the circular cited by the appellant did not apply to the present case, as it dealt with incomplete invoices, whereas the invoices in question were either not in the appellant's name or were altered without authentication.Issue 4: Time limitation for the show cause notice:The appellant raised the argument that the show cause notice was barred by time, as it was issued after a significant period from the alleged period of demand. However, the tribunal held that the appellant's actions in taking over liability without proper invoices constituted an intentional act to cause loss to the government exchequer. This intentional conduct allowed the Department to invoke the extended period of limitation, justifying the issuance of the notice. The tribunal found no infirmity in the order under challenge and upheld the decision, dismissing the appeal.In conclusion, the tribunal ruled against the appellant, denying the availing of cenvat credit on inadmissible documents due to non-compliance with the statutory requirements. The judgment emphasized the mandatory nature of the rules governing cenvat credit and the importance of proper documentation in claiming such credits. The tribunal also rejected the appellant's arguments regarding invoice authenticity and time limitations for the show cause notice, upholding the Department's decision.
TaxTMI 