TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (1) TMI 1086
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Department, it was revealed that the Appellant who was engaged in the manufacture of iron and steel products, had during the period from February-August 2009, availed Cenvat credit of Rs.4,442/- based on Xerox copies of Bills raised by M/s. Bharti Airtel Limited and credit of Rs.51,65,423/- on the basis of Certificates issued by M/s. Indian Bank, which though contained prescribed particulars as per Rule 4A of Service Tax Rules (Rules) and Rule 9 of CCR. It was alleged that as the credit of Rs.51,69,865/- appeared to be in contravention of Rule 9 of CCR, the Cenvat Credit availed was liable to be disallowed/ recovered from the Appellant under Rule 14 of CCR read with Section 11A of the ACT. A Show Cause Notice dated 24.12.2013 was issued to the Appellant seeking to recover the Cenvat Credit along with applicable interest, besides proposing to impose penalty under Rule 15(2) of CCR read with Section 11AC of the ACT as these were treated as not original duty paying documents. The Adjudicating Authority vide the impugned order confirmed demands of Rs.51,67,473/- (Rs.2050/- towards Xerox Copies of bills and Rs.51,65,423/- towards credit availed on Certificates issued by M/s Indian Bank)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e impugned order had not recorded any findings with regard to submissions made by the Appellant with regard to demand being barred by limitation and therefore invocation of extended period of limitation was not sustainable and the penalty imposed was not justified. It was pointed out that the Appellant was submitting ER 1 returns periodically and maintained Cenvat registers and the department was fully aware of the procedure adopted by M/s . Indian Bank for payment of service tax and therefore cannot allege suppression of facts on the Appellant relying on the ratio of the decisions in the following cases: - a. Pushpam Pharmaceuticals Company Vs. CCE, Bomaby [1995 (78) ELT 401 (SC)] b. Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Cehmphar Drugs & Liniments [1989 (40) ELT 276 (SC)] c. Continental Foundation Joint Venture Vs. CCE, Chandigarh [2007 (216) ELT 177 (SC)] d. Nestle India Ltd. Vs CCE, Chandigarh [2009 (5) ELT 577 (SC)] v. It was submitted that since the demand itself could not be sustained, there is no question of payment of interest. 4. 1 The Ld. Counsel Shri M.S. Nagaraja representing the Appellant reiterated the averments in the Grounds of Appeal and further submitted t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....103 (Tri.-Delhi) 4.5 The Ld. Counsel further submitted that it was well settled law that when the facts are known to the Department by way of disclosure of CENVAT Credit availed in ER 1 Returns as per the prescribed format and also during audit of the books as early as in October 2009 on the basis of the transactions recorded in the books, there cannot any suppression of facts or mala fide intention on the part of the Appellants relying on the following decisions: - a. Uniworth Textiles Ltd. Vs. CCE, Raipur [2013 (288) ELT 161 (SC)] b. CC Vs. Magus Metals Pvt. Ltd. [2017 (355) ELT 323 (SC)] c. Blue Star Ltd. Vs. UOI [2015 (322) ELT 820 (SC)] d. CCE, Mumbai III Vs. Essel Propack Ltd. [2015 (323) ELT 248 (SC)] e. Pahwa Chemicals Limited Vs. CCE, Delhi [2005 (189) ELT 257 (SC)] f. Continental Foundation Jt. Venture Vs. CCE, Chandigarh [2007 (216) ELT 177 (SC)] g. Anand Nishikawa Co. Limited Vs. CCE, Meerut [2005 (188) ELT 149 (SC)] 5. The Ld. Authorised Representative Shri Sanjay Kakkar representing the Department affirmed the findings of the Lower Appellate Authority and submitted that the Appellant had availed Cenvat credit of Rs.51,67,473/- on the basis of invalid/i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....- (1) Every person providing taxable service shall [not later than [thirty days] from the date of [completion of] such taxable service or receipt of any payment towards the value of such taxable service, whichever is earlier,] issue an invoice, a bill or, as the case may be, a challan signed by such person or a person authorized by him [in respect of such taxable service] [provided or agreed 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 and value of taxable service provided or agreed to be provided; and] (iv) the service tax payable thereon : [Provided that in case the provider of taxable service is a banking company or a financial institution including a non-banking financial company providing service to any person, an invoice, a bill or, as the case may be, Challan shall include any document, by whatever name called, whether or not serially numbered, and whether or not containing address of the person receiving taxable service ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cate dated 15.04.2014 confirmed that they have collected service tax from the Appellant towards "Banking and other Financial Services" provided by them, that the service tax collected has been remitted to their Head Office at Chennai holding Service Tax Registration No. AAACII607GST005 which in turn had remitted the Service tax for all the Branches of the Indian Bank and that they have issued the Certificates/Bank Statements to the extent of service tax collected for the purpose of availing CENVAT Credit. They have also confirmed that they have been following the same practice from the beginning. The impugned order had concluded that the Certificates of Statements of Service Tax collected issued by Indian Bank, Mecheri and Coimbatore Branches on "Banking and other Financial Services" are not prescribed documents under Rule 4A of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 and hence not valid documents for availing CENVAT credit as per Rule 9 of the CCR, 2004. We find that the Appellants have submitted Certificates or Statements of Service Tax collected by Indian Bank which contain the following details: - i. description of the transaction/service, date of transaction, value of service, amount of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the view that the appellant should not be deprived of the Cenvat credit which is available under the Cenvat Credit Rules framed as a beneficial scheme of the Central Excise statute. I am of the view that justice would be served if the appellant is accorded an opportunity to produce the said certificate before the adjudicating authority, who would examine the same and satisfy itself in so far credit amount is involved in the present dispute and undertake necessary computation if required. On receipt of this order, the appellant shall produce a copy thereof along with other relevant documents to the adjudicating authority who shall pass the de novo order within three months thereof" (ii) In the case of MPI Machine Limited Vs. CCE, Indore [2013 (31) STR) 103 (Tri.-Delhi)], it was held as follows: - "4. ----------- As regards the validity of the documents, the debit advices issued by the bank for different periods contain the name and address of the bank, service tax registration no., period during which services were provided, the nature of the service, amount charged for the services along with service tax and Education Cess. Thus, the debit advices issued by the bank on the basi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g address of the person receiving taxable service but containing other information in such documents as required under this sub-rule. In view of the amendment brought vide circular as mentioned above, the appellant had rightly availed credit on the basis of the certificate issued by the Bank amounting to Rs. 1,03,939/-." (v) We also find that this Tribunal had in Excise Appeal No. 41968/2014 in the case of M/s. Wendt India Ltd. Vs. CCE has held that the bank Certificate issued by the bank is a valid document in terms of Rule 3 of the CCR. (vi) In the case of Punjab National Bank Vs. CCE & ST, Bhopal [2018 (3) TMI 1248 - CESTAT, New Delhi] the Tribunal has set aside the impugned order and allowed Cenvat Credit by holding that relevant documents were provided by the Appellant which reflected requisite particulars prescribed under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. 12. The second issue in the appeal pertains to availment of Cenvat Credit on the strength of xerox copy of invoice. We find that in similar circumstances various courts/ Tribunals have decided the issue in favour of the Appellants and allowed Cenvat Credit. (i) In the case of Shivam Electrical Industries Vs. UOI [2018 (359) E....