2016 (11) TMI 859

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s as well as input services. The present dispute is about the Cenvat credit availed on the strength of documents issued by M/s Singh Transporters, Bilaspur who rendered cargo handling service to the appellant. After rendering the service the service provider issued initially invoices to recover the consideration for the service rendered in which the service tax element was not included. It is also a fact that at the time of raising this invoice for collecting consideration for the service, the service provider was not registered for payment of service tax. Subsequently, they registered themselves for the payment of service tax and issued supplementary invoices only for the service tax element. These service tax amounts were paid by the appe....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... for the service was recovered. Since the service tax amounts have been duly paid, the Cenvat credit thereof should be allowed to the appellant. (ii) The supplementary invoice raised by the service provider is on par with the original invoice as has been held by various judicial pronouncements. Further, since there is no record of any proceedings initiated by the Revenue against service provider in which there are allegations of suppression against them, there is no ground to deny the Cenvat credit availed availed on the basis of the supplementary invoices. They have also cited the following case laws in their support: (a) Secure Meters Ltd. Vs. CCE 2010 (18) STR 490 (Tri.-Del.). (b) Delphi Automotive Systems Pvt.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....er identical circumstances. In the case of Secure Meters Ltd. (supra) which is on identical facts to the one in present appeals Tribunal has held as followed. "3. I have carefully considered the submissions from both the sides and perused the records. In this case, there is no dispute about the fact that the appellant had received certain taxable services from M/s. Mother Power House Pvt. Ltd. and Vision Tech. during the period from December, 2003 to December, 2004, while at that time, the service providers i.e. M/s. Mother Power House Pvt. Ltd. and Vision Tech. were not registered and the invoices issued by them did not mention any Service tax registration no. That they subsequently took the service tax Registration and paid Servi....