TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (11) TMI 204
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oadcasting service providers (Star, ESPN, Zee etc.) The invoices issued by the various broadcasting service providers suffered from following infirmities:- 1. The documents of input service providers, on the strength of which CENVAT credit was taken, were photocopies and not original for buyers" 2 The documents of input service provider Star were captioned as invoices yet the same were notices' to the Noticees for payment 3. The invoices were not signed by any of the authorized person 4. Original was not written on the invoices. 2.1 As per the provision of Rule 9 of Cenvat credit Rules, 2004 and instructions contained in Chapter 4 of the CBEC's Excise Manual Supplementary instructions, 2005 and provisions of Rule 4A of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 not followed by the respondents and the invoices on the basis of which they availed Cenvat credit did not satisfy the requirement of the various provisions of law, consequently, those invoices could not be considered as valid invoices in terms of Rule 9 of the CCR to avail the Cenvat credit. Accordingly, show cause demanding Cenvat Credit of Rs. 75,33,172/- under Rule 14 of the CCR and interest under Section 75 of the Finance ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....visions of Rule 9(2) Supra of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 are equally applicable to invoices issued under both Central Excise Rules as well as Service Tax Rules. 5.1 Ld. AR further submits that the Adjudicating Authority has merely said that none of the deficiency is of nature that is fatal for allowing the Cenvat Credit in terms of Rule 9(2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and not given his clear finding on the issue prior to allowing the Cenvat Credit involved in these invoices. He further submits that the Cenvant credit has been allowed on the strength of photocopies, but even in the photocopies of the invoices produced by the respondent, no signature of any authorized person appears which is one of the mandatory requirement under Rule 4A of the Service Tax Rules, 1994. The Ld. AR further submits that provision of extended period of limitation was rightly invoked in the show cause notice. The Ld. AR in support of his submissions has relied upon the following decisions wherein the Cenvat Credit has been disallowed on the basis of the Photocopy of the invoices : * Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi Vs. Avis Electronics (P) Ltd reported as 2000 (117) ELT. 571 (Tri. LB). ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....axable service provided or to be provided and such invoice, bill or, as the case may be challan shall be serially numbered and shall contain the following, namely (i) the name, address and the registration number of such person, (ii) the name and address of the person receiving taxable service (iii) description, classification and value of taxable service provided or to be provided and (iv) the service tax payable thereon" RULE 9. Documents and accounts. (1) The CENVAT credit shall be taken by the manufacturer or the provider of output service or input service distributor, as the case may be, on the basis of any of the following documents, namely:- (a) an invoice issued by - (i) a manufacturer for clearance of---- (ii) an importer, (iii) an importer from his depot or from the premises of the consignment agent of the said importer if the said depot or the premises, as the case may be, is registered in terms of the provisions of Central Excise Rules, 2002, (iv) a first stage dealer or a second stage dealer, as the case may be, in terms of the provisions of Central Excise Rules, 2002, ог (b) a supplementary invoice, ((bb) a supplementary invoice, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....LT. 3 (S.C.) and Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. - 2012 (276) E.LT. 145 (SC.) held that in order to claim the benefit under the law, substantial compliance is not enough and the procedures prescribed in the statute should be mandatorily followed. This ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court prevails over the case laws relied upon by the appellant. Therefore, I hold that the appellant was ineligible to take CENVAT Credit on the strength of documents which are not statutorily prescribed. In the present case. I notice that documents which have been submitted are not those specified in the law. Therefore, the appellant cannot take CENVAT Credit on the strength of such documents." Similarly, in the case of DSM Sugar V. CCE, Meerut-II- 2013(287) ELT 236 (Tri-Del) Para 6 has reproduced here in below: "6. As regards Cenvat credit taken on the basis of photocopies of the invoices, though Rule 9(1) of Cenvat Credit Rules, does not mention that the invoice/bill or challan has to be the original, if Cenvat credit is allowed on the basis of photocopies without any check. credit can be taken more than once on the basis of the same invoices. Therefore, Cenvat credit cannot be allowed on th....