NPCI certificates not recognized under Rule 9(1) CCR; adjudicator must verify actual service tax payment before allowing CENVAT credit

CESTAT MUMBAI - AT allowed the appeal by remanding the matter to the original adjudicating authority. It held that certificates issued by NPCI are not prescribed documents under Rule 9(1) CCR, and that the crucial issue is verification of actual payment of service tax. The tribunal noted admissions that NPCI did not raise invoices and may not have paid service tax; accordingly the respondent must establish payment (including ST-3 returns or other documentary proof). The adjudicator must objectively reassess evidence and record satisfaction before allowing CENVAT credit.

---

---

1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

- Whether CENVAT credit can be availed by a provider of output service on the basis of statements/certificates issued by an intermediary (NPCI) rather than invoices/bills/challans issued by the actual service providers (acquiring banks), having regard to Rule 4A of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 and Rules 3, 4 and 9 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.

- Whether the factual prerequisite for allowing CENVAT credit - namely, payment of service tax by the input service provider - was established by objective documentary evidence (e.g., ST-3 returns or invoices) and where the burden of proof lies when the prescribed documents are not of the type listed in Rule 9(1).

- Whether the proviso to Rule 4A and Rule 9(2) operate to relax prescribed documentary requirements for banks/financial institutions and, if so, whether that relaxation extends to e-statements or settlement reports issued by an intermediary acting as agent of the acquiring bank.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1 - Admissibility of CENVAT credit based on NPCI-issued statements (Legal framework)

- Legal framework: Rules 3, 4 and 9 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 set conditions for taking credit and prescribe admissible documents (Rule 9(1)); Rule 9(2) permits allowance even if a document lacks some particulars provided certain core details exist and the jurisdictional officer is satisfied. Rule 4A(1) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 prescribes invoice/bill/challan requirements and contains a proviso permitting banks/financial institutions to use "any document, by whatever name called" so long as required information is present.

- Precedent treatment: The Tribunal and some benches have allowed credit on e-statements or agent-issued documents (e.g., Karur Vysya Bank, NP Publicity), while revenue relied on higher court pronouncements mandating strict/plain meaning interpretation in taxing statutes (Dilip Kumar larger bench principle as invoked) to argue against liberal treatment.

- Interpretation and reasoning: The Court (Commissioner in original order) analysed the nature and statutory role of the intermediary (NPCI), its agreements with member banks, the settlement mechanism and the content of the statements. It held that where statements issued by NPCI contain all particulars required by Rule 4A (or Rule 9(2) core details) and NPCI functions under mandate/coordination with RBI facilitating settlement (including collection/pass-through of interchange and tax), denying credit solely because the document is issued by NPCI would be unfair and contrary to the object of the rules. The Tribunal, however, emphasized that NPCI is not a statutorily specified issuer under CENVAT Rules and that the admissibility ultimately depends on objective proof of tax payment by the actual service provider.

- Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio (as upheld by the Commissioner): where an intermediary issues a document that contains required particulars and the intermediary operates as authorised/mandated facilitator under bank agreements, such document may not be treated as invalid per se. Obiter: broader comments on policy unfairness and coordination with RBI as sufficient to treat intermediary documents as statutory invoices in all circumstances.

- Conclusion: Documents issued by NPCI can qualify as valid for CENVAT purposes only if they contain the requisite particulars and there is objective satisfaction/verification that the tax has been paid by the service provider; mere issuance by NPCI does not automatically convert the statement into a prescribed invoice under Rule 9(1) absent documentary proof of tax payment.

Issue 2 - Burden of proof and establishment of payment of service tax by input service provider

- Legal framework: Rule 9 mandates that CENVAT credit be based on specified documents; Rule 9(2) allows discretion to permit credit where documents lack particulars but contain core details and the Deputy/Assistant Commissioner is satisfied that tax has been paid and inputs used; Rule 6 places burden of proof regarding admissibility on the claimant.

- Precedent treatment: Authorities cited indicate that CENVAT credit cannot be allowed where payment of tax by provider cannot be established (precedents emphasising documentary trail and jurisdictional satisfaction). Some benches permitted credit when jurisdictional authority had recorded satisfaction after verification (Pragati Steels, certain CESTAT benches).

- Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal stressed that the fundamental requirement of the CENVAT regime is proof of payment of tax by the input service provider. The CFO of NPCI admitted NPCI did not raise invoices or itself pay service tax on interchange fees but issued settlement reports. Therefore the fact of payment must be traced to either NPCI (if it paid) or to the acquiring banks (whose ST-3 returns or invoices should reflect payment). Where the document relied upon is not a prescribed invoice of the service provider, the claimant must produce verifiable documentary trail (ST-3 returns, acquiring bank invoices, evidence of remittance) to satisfy the jurisdictional officer objectively. Subjective satisfaction without documentary verification is inadequate.

- Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio: admissibility of credit turns on objective verification of tax payment by the service provider; burden on claimant to establish such payment where supporting document is not itself a prescribed invoice. Obiter: remarks on inconsistency of parties' positions before different fora (e.g., claiming non-taxability in other appeals while claiming credit here) as strengthening need for verification.

- Conclusion: The CENVAT credit claim must be remanded for objective verification of payment of service tax by the service provider (NPCI/acquiring bank) through verifiable documentary trail; absent such proof credit cannot be sustained.

Issue 3 - Interaction of Rule 4A proviso and Rule 9(2) (documentary relaxations for banking sector)

- Legal framework: Proviso to Rule 4A(1) allows banks/financial institutions to issue "any document" (whether serially numbered or containing address) provided it contains other required information; Rule 9(2) provides discretionary allowance where documents lack particulars but include core details and jurisdictional officer is satisfied of payment and receipt.

- Precedent treatment: Some decisions have read the proviso and Rule 9(2) harmoniously to allow e-statements or agent-issued statements as sufficient where jurisdictional authority records satisfaction; others caution that statutory prescriptions cannot be expanded by judicial interpretation and strict reading in tax matters is required.

- Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal held both provisions must be read together: the proviso relaxes format requirements for banking documents, and Rule 9(2) permits allowance despite missing particulars subject to jurisdictional satisfaction. However, such harmonised reading does not abolish the core requirement of establishing payment of tax by the input service provider. Where an intermediary issues statements as agent under contract, those statements may qualify if they carry requisite particulars and payment is verifiable; but the intermediary's mere issuance does not supplant the requirement that the acquiring bank must have discharged the tax liability (or that NPCI has done so and reported same in returns).

- Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio: proviso to Rule 4A and Rule 9(2) can provide procedural relaxation for banks but do not negate requirement of verifiable tax payment; Obiter: commentary on when remand versus larger-bench reference would have been preferable regarding conflicting coordinate bench decisions.

- Conclusion: Harmonised interpretation permits acceptance of bank sector documents where they satisfy core criteria and jurisdictional verification confirms payment; otherwise the claim must be re-examined and cannot succeed purely on liberal construction.

Final disposition and operative conclusion

- The appellate forum allowed the revenue appeal to the limited extent of remanding the matter to the original/adjudicating authority for objective verification of the payment of service tax by the service provider (NPCI and/or acquiring bank) on the basis of verifiable documentary trail (e.g., ST-3 returns, invoices), with directions to decide the matter within a specified time. The ultimate admissibility of the contested CENVAT credit depends on the outcome of that verification. This remand forms the dispositive order; findings holding the NPCI-issued statements sufficient without documentary proof of payment were set aside for fresh, documented verification.

---