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>NPCI e-statements qualify for CENVAT credit under Rule 4A proviso despite lacking Rule 9 particulars</h1> <h3>M/s. South Indian Bank Limited Versus Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Calicut</h3> M/s. South Indian Bank Limited Versus Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Calicut - TMI Issues:Whether the appellant is entitled to avail cenvat credit on e-statement issued by NPCI during the period April 2009 to March 2012.Analysis:The appeal was filed against an Order-in-Original passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax, Calicut, regarding the appellant availing inadmissible cenvat credit without proper documents for input services received. The appellant, a banking company, claimed credit based on e-statements issued by NPCI. The appellant argued that NPCI acts as an agent of member banks and the e-statements should be treated as valid invoices under Rule 4A of Service Tax Rules, 1994. The appellant cited precedents where similar demands were dropped for other banks. The Revenue, however, supported the findings of the Commissioner. The Tribunal considered whether the e-statement issued by NPCI met the requirements of Rule 9 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.The Tribunal noted that NPCI facilitates transactions for banking companies and provides necessary network services. The proviso to Rule 4A of the Service Tax Rules, 1994, applies to banking companies, allowing flexibility in the form of invoices. The agreement between the appellant (a member bank) and NPCI outlined the services provided and the invoicing process. The Tribunal found that the e-statement issued by NPCI contained all required particulars and should be considered a valid document for availing cenvat credit. The Tribunal highlighted that NPCI's credibility and compliance were not in question, further supporting the appellant's position.The Tribunal referred to precedents and the Commissioner's decision in dropping similar demands for the appellant for subsequent periods. Considering the arguments and precedents, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal with consequential relief as per law. The judgment emphasized the importance of the agreement between the appellant and NPCI, the nature of services provided, and the validity of the e-statements for claiming cenvat credit.
TaxTMI 