CENVAT credit allowed despite incorrect recipient addresses when invoices contain all requisite particulars under Rule 9(2) proviso

CESTAT New Delhi held that jurisdiction challenge against adjudicating authority was unsustainable despite different authority issuing show cause notice. Court allowed CENVAT credit on input services where invoices contained incorrect recipient addresses but included all requisite particulars under Rule 9(2) proviso. Revenue failed to prove other units received services or accounted invoices. CA certificate confirmed only appellant availed credit. Court emphasized CENVAT credit as indefeasible vested right when entitlement undisputed. Appeal allowed, impugned order set aside.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the adjudicating authority.
2. Admissibility of Cenvat credit on invoices with incorrect address.
3. Denial of Cenvat credit based on printouts of emails.
4. Suppression of facts and invocation of extended period of limitation.
5. Imposition of penalties and recovery of interest.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the Adjudicating Authority:
The appellant contended that the adjudicating authority lacked jurisdiction because the show cause notice was issued by the Assistant Commissioner, CGST Audit, Jaipur, but adjudicated by the Deputy Commissioner, CGST Division, Jaipur. The Departmental Representative referred to Circular No. 985/09/2014-CX dated 22.09.2014, which clarified that the Executive Commissioner or subordinate officers of the Executive Commissionerate are responsible for adjudication after the issuance of a show cause notice by the Audit Commissionerate. The Tribunal held that the adjudicating authority had competent jurisdiction as per the circular, and the appellant's challenge on jurisdiction grounds was not sustainable.

2. Admissibility of Cenvat Credit on Invoices with Incorrect Address:
The appellant argued that the invoices contained all necessary details under Rule 9(1)(f) of the Credit Rules and Rule 4A(1) of the Service Tax Rules, except for the correct address. The Tribunal noted that the substantive benefit of Cenvat credit under Rule 3 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 (CCR, 2004) cannot be denied due to procedural lapses. The invoices were accounted for in the appellant's books, and the Chartered Accountant's certificate confirmed that no other units availed credit based on those invoices. The Tribunal held that the deficiency in the invoices was not sufficient to deny the benefit of Cenvat credit, as the invoices were found to be genuine and accounted for in the appellant's records.

3. Denial of Cenvat Credit Based on Printouts of Emails:
The appellant submitted that the denial of Cenvat credit of Rs. 72,769/- based on printouts of emails was incorrect. The documents considered by the department were internal communication letters, and the actual invoices were validly issued by RITES Ltd. The Tribunal found that the appellant correctly availed credit based on valid documents and that the denial was unsustainable.

4. Suppression of Facts and Invocation of Extended Period of Limitation:
The department alleged that the appellant suppressed facts with the intent to evade payment of Central Excise duty, invoking the extended period of limitation. The Tribunal observed that the discrepancies were noticed during the audit, and there was no evidence of suppression of facts by the appellant. The Tribunal held that the extended period of limitation was not invokable, and the demand for central excise duty of Rs. 1,34,261/- was unsustainable.

5. Imposition of Penalties and Recovery of Interest:
The appellant argued that penalties were not imposable, and interest was not recoverable due to the procedural nature of the lapses. The Tribunal noted that the appellant had taken corrective measures by requesting vendors to issue corrected invoices and provided a CA certificate confirming that the credit was availed only by the appellant. The Tribunal held that the denial of credit and imposition of penalties were not justified, as the procedural lapses did not warrant such actions.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal set aside the order under challenge, allowed the appeal, and granted consequential benefits to the appellant, emphasizing that procedural lapses should not deny substantial benefits and that the burden of proof regarding the admissibility of Cenvat credit lies with the department.

---