TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (5) TMI 1655
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rcial/ Industrial buildings or Civil structure, Transport of goods by road, renting of immoveable service, legal consultancy service & other taxable services. During the course of Audit of the Appellant, the department noticed that the Appellant had wrongly availed the Cenvat Credit amounting to Rs.3,07,51,666/- without having proper documents prescribed under Rule 9(1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 during the period from July, 2012 to 30.06.2017. The credit was taken by the Appellant on the basis of running account bills prepared by engineers of the appellant showing measurement of work and amount to be paid to the Contractor. The Department opined that these running account bills did not contain the mandatory information required for availing Cenvat credit, therefore they cannot be termed as proper document for availing Cenvat credit in terms of Rule 9(1) of the Cenvat credit Rules, 2004. The Department also noted that the Appellant had taken the Cenvat credit during the period July, 2012 to June,2017 amounting to Rs.2,38,50,562/- in their CENVAT register by reverse calculation from amount paid/payable to the Contractors, but the ST-3 Returns filed by the Appellant for the sam....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat the Appellant had declared the details of Cenvat credit in the ST-3 returns, which were required to be declared as per the bona fide judgment of the Appellant. Thus, the extended period of limitation is not invokable. In this regard, he placed on the following decisions: (i) Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Haryana [2024-VIL-45-CESTAT-DEL-ST]; (ii) GD Goenka Private Limited vs. Commissioner of Central Goods and Services Tax, Delhi South [2023-VIL-798-CESTAT DEL-ST New Delhi]; (iii) Ganon Dunkerley & Co. Ltd. vs. Commissioner (Adj.) of Service Tax, New Delhi [2021(47) GSTL 35 (Tri.- Del)]; (iv) Uniworth Textiles Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Raipur [2013(288) E.L.T. 161 (S.C.)]; (v) HLS Asia Ltd. vs. Commissioner, Service Tax Commissionerate, New Delhi [2023 (73) G.S. T.L. 539 (Tri. - Del.)]; and (vi) Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs vs. Reliance Industries Limited [2023 (385) ELT 481] 3.2 Learned counsel contended that the present demand had culminated following the audit and all the details and documents were verified by the audit team and all the ma....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the Credit Rules. He relied on the following decisions: (i) National Engineering Industries Limited vs. Commissioner, CGST and Central Excise, Jaipur [2024-VIL-1735-CESTAT-DEL-C]; (ii) IneosStyrolution India Ltd vs. C.C.E. & S.T. Vadodara-l [2024-VIL-1735-CESTAT-DEL-CE] 2022-VIL-188-CESTAT-AHM-ST; and (iii) Nissan Motor India Private Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Chennai [2019-VIL-784-CESTAT-CHE-ST]. 3.5 Learned counsel further stated that for the normal period of limitation from October 2016 to June 2017, the Appellant has paid Service tax of Rs. 5,99,509/- under reverse charge via GAR-7 challans. (b) The running account bills contain substantial particulars prescribed under Rule 9 of Credit Rules read with Rule 4A of ST Rules. When the transactions are genuine. substantial benefit of Cenvat Credit cannot be denied on procedural infirmities. 3.6 Learned counsel also submitted that the case of the department was based on the premise that running account bills prepared by the Appellant are not prescribed document to avail the Cenvat credit as per Rule 9(1) of Credit Rules, and they do not contain the particulars prescribed under ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bility to take credit in respect of such input services. Thus, Cenvat credit cannot be denied merely on account of procedural infractions particularly when there is no dispute regarding receipt of services or eligibility of credit. He place reliance on Rajasthan State Road Development and Construction Corporation Ltd. vs. Commissioner, Central Excise & CGST-Jodhpur [Final Order No. 50228/2023 dated 15.2.2023 in Service Tax Appeal No. 51463 of 2022 (SM) -CESTAT Delhi], wherein this Tribunal allowed the Cenvat Credit to the assessee on the basis of running account bills in similar facts and circumstances. Since the demand was not sustainable, interest was not leviable and penalty was also not imposable. Hence, the demand was liable to be set aside. Learned counsel prayed that the appeal be allowed in full, with consequential relief. 4. Learned authorized representative for the Department reiterated the findings of the given in the Order-in-Original and Order-in-Appeal. He submitted that Rule 9(1) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, specifies the documents on which the Cenvat credit shall be availed by the manufacturer or the provider of output service or input service distributor as the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted at length regarding the incorrect invocation of the extended period of limitation in the instant case. In the instant case, we find that the appellant is one of the divisions of the Rajasthan Housing Board established under the Rajasthan Housing Board Act, 1970 to deal with housing accommodation in the state. The learned Counsel has relied upon this Tribunal's decisions in their own case wherein the invocation of the extended period has been set aside. We refer to the Final Order no. 50319/2026 dated 09.03.2026 in their own case wherein the Tribunal held as follows: - "9. From the above, we find that even the Adjudicating Authority has proceeded solely on the ground that the issue has been detected only during the course of audit of records and under the self-assessment procedure, the appellant was required to assess and discharge their duty liability appropriately, which the appellant failed to do. The Adjudicating Authority did not even refer to the pre-requisites for the application of the extended period. In fact, the contents of the above para shows complete non-application of mind by the Adjudicating Authority to the existence of the criteria in terms of the prov....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... as he had the power to, what was noticed by the audit would have been noticed by him. Audit has done what the Range officer was empowered to but did not do. At any rate, the fact audit detected the wrong availment of CENVAT cannot be the ground to invoke extended period of limitation." 6.3 Further, we note that that the appellant was registered with the Revenue, and had cooperated during the audit proceedings by furnishing all the details as sought by the audit team. Further, the details of the Cenvat credit availed by the appellant was declared in their ST-3 returns which were filed regularly. The Revenue has not led any evidence to establish that there was any malafide intent to evade duty. Further, it is an admitted fact that the appellant is a state instrumentality, and consequently no suppression or fraud can be alleged. In view of the above discussions, we hold that the demand for the extended period cannot be sustained. 7. As regards the demand for the normal period, we note that the learned Counsel has submitted that a part of the said credit was availed on the service tax paid on reverse charge basis. In the instant case, it is noted that service tax on reverse char....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he rules envisage flexibility in nomenclature depending on trade and business practices. Different practices are followed in different trades. Nomenclature can vary from trade to trade or business to business. Further, we note that as per rule 5(1) of Service Tax Rules, the records maintained by assessee including computerized data maintained by assessee in accordance with various other laws are acceptable. Thus, private documents maintained in normal course of business are acceptable. No special records or registers or change in business practices are envisaged. This also clearly, indicates that law does not envisage that trade should change its normal practices. 9. In view of the foregoing discussions, we hold that the Cenvat credit availed by the appellant on such Running Account Bills read with the Payment orders is correct. We also draw support from this Tribunal's decision in Rajasthan State Road Development and Construction Corporation Ltd. vs Commissioner of C.Ex & CGST, Jodhpur [Final Order No.50228/2023, dated:15.02.2023] wherein this Tribunal allowed Cenvat credit n such running bills. The relevant para is reproduced hereinafter:- "9. Having considered the gr....