TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (1) TMI 65
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....)/customers. These service providers were discharging service tax on this service under the head "Support Services for Business & Commerce". Due to revision in rate of service (escalation of price), these service providers had issued additional invoices on the Appellant to recover the differential amount of consideration including service tax leviable thereon. Based on such invoices, the Appellant availed CENVAT credit of the service tax paid on such differential amount of consideration. Availment of CENVAT credit that has been disputed by the department in the instant case alleging violation of Rule 4A (1) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 read with Rule 9(1)(f) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. 2.1. On the aforesaid allegation, the following 2 SCNs were issued: SCN Date Demand Amount (Rs.) Period 28-12-2011 9,08,84,640/- Dec 2006 to Dec 2010 12-01-2012 49,03,548- Jan 2011 to Mar 2011 TOTAL 9,57,88,188/- 2.2. The demands proposed in the SCNs were confirmed vide common OIO dated 27-11-2012 wherein the CENVAT Credit availed on the basis of supplementary invoices were rejected by the Ld. adjudicating authority on the following findings:- ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....submitted that in Usha Martin Limited (supra) by relying on Delphi Automotive, 2016 (46) STR 369 (Tri Del) this tribunal held that for the period prior to 01.04.2011, as Rule 9(1) did not make any distinction between invoice or supplementary invoice in respect of services, therefore, the term "invoice" in Rule 9(1)(f) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 has to be treated including "supplementary invoice". Thus, the Appellant submits that cannot be denied CENVAT credit availed by the appellant on the basis of supplementary invoices cannot be denied. 3.2. The appellant submits that there is no dispute that duty has not been discharged on the supplementary invoices. The SCN records that service tax has been discharged on the supplementary invoices. Further, there is also no dispute regarding the fact of receipt of input services and using it towards manufacture of dutiable goods. In light of the above, the appellant submits that CENVAT credit cannot be denied to the Appellant and hence the OIO is liable to be set aside. 4. The Ld. A.R. reiterated the findings in the impugned order. 5. We observe that the CENVAT Credit availed by the appellant on the basis of supplementary invoic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ce provider and not the service recipient. Moreover, the period prescribed in the said Ruleis directory and not mandatory as has been held by the Hon'ble High Court................................................................" 5.1. We observe that in Usha Martin Limited (supra) by relying on Delphi Automotive, 2016 (46) STR 369 (Tri Del) this tribunal has held that for the period prior to 01.04.2011, as Rule 9(1) did not make any distinction between invoice or supplementary invoice in respect of services, therefore, the term "invoice" in Rule 9(1)(f) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 has to be treated including "supplementary invoice". "7..........Further, the issue as to whether the supplementary invoices are specified documents in terms of Rule 9(1)(f) of CCR 2004, we find that this issue is also no longer res-integra as it is settled by the decision of the co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in Delphi Automotive Systems (P) Ltd. vs. Commissioner of C.EX., Noida, 2016 (46) S.T.R. 369 (Tri. Del.). In Para 8 of the said decision, it has been observed that: "8. Coming to the first question as to whether during the period of dispute, 'supplementary invoice' coul....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....input service provider has been prescribed as valid document for availment of CENVAT Credit. The demand made against the appellant by invoking Rule 9 (1) (b) is contrary to the scheme of the Rule 9 (1). Similar view has been expressed by the tribunal in following cases........................................................................ 4.5 The Commissioner has in his order referred to rule 9 (1) (bb) inserted with effect from 01.04.2011 to justify the invocation of Rule 9 (1) (b) for confirming the demand against the appellant. The above argument is devoid of any merits. Prior to 01.04.2011 service tax was payable only after receipt of consideration by the service provider. Rule 6 (1) of the Service tax Rules, 1994 was amended to provide for payment of service tax on the accrual basis instead of on the receipt basis i.e. service tax became payable, immediately on the issuance of the invoice evidencing the provision of taxable service by the service provider................................. Above two amendments were made with effect from 01.04.2011. As the manner of payment of service tax was made on the accrual basis with effect from 01.04.2011, which was akin....