TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (9) TMI 781
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s titled "debit notes" issued by the service providers. Another credit of Rs. 1,09,410/- was taken by the appellant during the same period on the basis of the invoices issued by one Shri Pradeep Chopra. These invoices were also issued in respect of providing the services of procuring of orders on commission. The department was of the view that the appellants are not eligible for Cenvat credit of Rs. 30,16,390/- taken by them on the basis of the debit notes issued by various service providers as the debit notes are not the valid documents for Cenvat credit in terms of Rule 9(1) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and even otherwise, the same do not contain the information which is required to be mentioned in the invoices issued by the service providers under Rule 4A of the Service Tax Rules, 1994. With regard to Cenvat credit of Rs. 1,09,410/- availed on the basis of the invoices issued by Shri Pradeep Chopra, the credit was denied on the ground that he is an employee of the appellant company and, therefore, the service provided by him is service to self and the appellant would not be eligible for Cenvat credit. Based on these two objections, the Joint Commissioner, Central Excise, issued ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that as such, all the information which is required to be mentioned in the debit notes in terms of the Rule 4A of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 is mentioned in the debit notes, that all the debit notes had been shown to the investigating officers and two sample copies of the debit notes have been produced before the lower authorities, that in view of this, disallowing of Cenvat credit, availed on the debit notes is not correct, that in this regard, he relies upon the judgment of the Tribunal in the cases - Pharmalab Process Equipments Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Ahmedabad - 2009 (242) E.L.T. 467 (Tri.-Ahmd.) = 2009 (16) S.T.R. 94 (Tri.-Ahmd.), CCE, Indore v. Gwalior Chemicals Industries Ltd. - 2011 (274) E.L.T. 97 (Tri.-Delhi) and CCE, Grasim Industries Ltd. - 2011 (24) S.T.R. 691, wherein it has been held that when the debit notes issued by the service provider contain all the information which is required to be mentioned in the invoices, the same have to be treated as valid documents under Rule 9(1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules for the purpose of availing the Cenvat credit, that as regards the denial of Cenvat credit of Rs. 1,09,410/- taken on the basis of the invoices issued by Shri Pradeep C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nvoices issued by Shri Pradeep Chopra and as such, there is no evidence that they had suppressed any relevant evidence from the department and had deliberately taken wrong Cenvat credit. He, therefore, pleaded that the impugned order is not sustainable either on merits or on limitation. 5. Ms. Suchitra Sharma, ld. Joint CDR, defended the impugned order by reiterating the findings of the Commissioner and pleaded that so far as the issue of taking Cenvat credit on the basis of the debit notes is concerned, the debit notes do not contain complete information, which is required to be mentioned as per provisions of Rule 4A of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 in an invoice, that nature of the service mentioned in the debit notes is vague and as such, on the basis of the invoices it is not possible to determine as to which service has been provided by the person, who had issued the debit notes and whether the same are eligible for Cenvat credit, that the persons, who had issued the debit notes are dealers and the amount mentioned in the debit notes are the dealer's margin and not the commission charged for Business Auxiliary Service for procuring sales orders, that in view of this, the C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t on the basis of the invoices issued by Shri Pradeep Chopra is without any base, and as such the denial of credit of Rs. 1,09,410/- is not sustainable. 8. Coming to the Cenvat credit of Rs. 30,16,390/- based on the debit notes issued by the various persons, there is no dispute that these persons are dealers. On going through some of these debit notes placed on record, it is seen that all the debit notes mention the Service Tax registration number of the persons issuing the debit notes, which had been issued in respect of the Business Auxiliary Service. These debit notes also mention the full address of the service providers and have been issued to the appellant company. The debit notes mentioned the description of the service as "project commission" on various projects and the amount of the commission and also the Service Tax paid on the same. According to the ld. Counsel for the appellant, the "project commission" is the commission charged for procuring the sales orders for supply to various projects and as such, the commission is in respect of the Business Auxiliary Service provided by these dealers. The plea of the ld. Joint CDR is that the description of the service and ....