TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (9) TMI 456
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tax paid on common services. The ISD unit took registration on 05.10.2007. The ISD Unit transferred the credit pertaining to the Appellant unit by way of ISD invoices. This transferred credit was being availed by the Appellant. One single invoice of ISD Unit was issued generally for whole of the month covering number of corresponding invoices received by the ISD Unit for the Appellant. For example, invoice No.1 dated 25.07.2007 covers 78 invoices. The Appellant availed such credit and reflected the details of the credit of service tax availed in the returns filed for the impugned period i.e. 2007-2008. The Department carried out audit somewhere in 2008-09. During the audit, an allegation was made regarding inadmissible credit taken in respect of certain invoices of the service providers covered by the invoices of ISD. Notably all the invoices covered by any single ISD invoice were not disputed by the Audit. Only few of the invoices of the service providers referred in an invoice was disputed. For example, only one invoice of J.B. Carriers and Movers P. Ltd providing GTA service appearing at Serial No.75 of the ISD Invoice No.1 dated 25.07.2007 has been disputed. No other invoice co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....provider. 6.2. The main contention of the Appellant is that neither the audit party nor the Adjudicating Authority has supplied the copies of invoices on which Cenvat credit was denied. They further submitted that onus of proving wrong availment of Cenvat Credit is upon Department, which was not discharged by the Department. The Department failed to provide the details of documentary evidences. I find that the audit party has clearly given their observation that during the scrutiny of ST-3 returns and invoices issued by the Service Providers of M/s Berger Paints India Ltd., Sikanderabad, it was noticed that the Appellant was taking Cenvat credit against such invoices/ bills of service providers, who were not registered in service tax ranges. The Appellant has availed such credit, without ensuring the registration no. of service providers and deposit of service tax in central government. 6.3. I find that the contention of the Appellant is wrong, that the invoices were not provided by the Department. In fact, it was responsibility of the Appellant to provide justification in respect of the invoices which were found invalid for taking Cenvat credit. From Order-in-Original, it is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g that the ISD invoices were not correct. One of the allegations made was that the ISD was not registered in the beginning of the period or the registration number mentioned on the ISD invoice was incorrect, whereas, that was not the case in the SCN or during audit. Because if that would had been the case, then the whole of the credit distributed by such ISD invoices was to be questioned. The Adjudicating Authority failed to follow the basic principle of adjudication that the adjudication cannot go beyond the allegation in the SCN. The following were the 10 invoices of ISD and all were admittedly produced before the audit party as well as before the Adjudicating Authority:- 001/25.07.2007, 007/31.07.2007, 002/30.08.2007, 005/26.12.2007, 004/24.12.2007, 006/26.12.2007, 007/21.02.2007, 008/21.12.2008, 009/21.02.2008, 010/21.02.2008 As stated above, the audit disputed only few invoices covered under the ISD invoices and that is possible only if the audit party would have examined and looked into the ISD invoice. Therefore, it is a perverse finding that such invoices were now presented before the adjudication and not before the Authorities at earlier stages. In any case, such invoi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... is placed on the case of Rajender Kumar & Associates vs. Commissioner reported at 2020 (11) TMI-621 - CESTAT New Delhi where it was held that once the requirement of relevant rules for issuance of invoices is met, credit cannot be disallowed on the ground that the ISD was not registered. The mandate to obtain ISD registration is not prescribed in law for distribution, and thus, denying the Credit based on allegation that the New Delhi unit was not registered as an ISD unit for three invoices lacks statutory backing and should not impede the Appellant's vested rights. 9. I find that the facts of the present case are squarely covered by following decisions:- 1. Commissioner of C. Ex., S.T. & Cus., Bengaluru Vs. Hinduja Global Solutions Ltd. 2022 (61) G.S.T.L. 417 (Kar.). 2. Trident Powercraft Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE & ST (LTU), Bangalore reported at 2016 (41) S.T.R. 687 (Tri. - Bang.). 3. Bhusan Power & Steel Ltd. vs. Commissioner of C. EX. Kolkata - IV 2017 (52) S.T.R. 305 (Tri- Kolkata). 4. CCE Vs. Dashion Ltd. reported at 2016 (41) S.T.R. 884 (Guj.). 10. I find that the Appellant was claiming the Cenvat credit on the basis of ISD invoices which were issued by their Delhi offi....