Cce, Rohtak vs M/S.E.C.E. Industries Ltd

[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.522/SVS/RTK/2013 dated 24.09.2013 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Gurgaon]

For approval and signature:

HONBLE MR. S.K. MOHANTY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) 1. Whether Press reporters may be allowed to see the order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?

2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?

3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?

4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities? __________________________________________________

CCE, Rohtak Appellant

Vs.

M/s.E.C.E. Industries Ltd.  Respondent

Present for the Appellant : Shri Pramod Kuamr, D.R. Present for the Respondent: Shri A.K. Mishra, Consultant

Coram: HONBLE MR. S.K. MOHANTY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

Date of Hearing/Decision: 16.06.2015

FINAL ORDER NO. _54264/2015__

PER: S.K. MOHANTY

Revenue is in appeal against the impugned order dated 24.09.2013 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Central Excise, Gurgoan. The grievance of Revenue are that the Bank certificates do not contain any serial number, address of the party and are not in the form of invoice as required under the provisions of Rule 4A of the Service Tax Rules, 1994; that since the said certificates were issued in simple letter format, the same cannot be considered as valid documents for the purpose of taking cenvat credit; that the central office of the Respondent was not registered with the Department as the Input Service Distributor, thus the appellant was not eligible for the Cenvat benefit.

2. Heard the ld. Counsel for both sides and perused the records.

3. Manner of preparation of invoice by the service provider is contained in Rule 4A of the Service Tax Rules, 1994. The proviso appended thereto specifies that in case of invoices issued by the banking company, the rigour of the said rule shall not be applicable, in as much as, in absence of mention of serial number and address of the service receiver, credit should be allowed. It is an admitted fact on record that the certificates based on which the cenvat credit has been taken by the appellant were issued by the banking company for providing the taxable services. Perusal of the certificate issued by the banker reveals that the same are in conformity with the proviso to Rule 4A ibid. Further, the proviso affixed to Rule 9 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, empowered the Jurisdictional Central Excise Authorities to allow Cenvat credit, even if, the desired information are not available in the invoice, subject to the satisfaction of receipt of service and maintenance of books of accounts by the service receiver. I find that the documents in the present case issued by the bankers are in conformity with the proviso contained in Rule 4A ibid read with Rule 9 (2) ibid. Upon verification of the books of accounts of the appellant, the practicing Chartered Accountant has also certified that the cenvat credit of service tax attributable to the disputed invoices was taken by the appellant. Since receipt and accountal of the input service is not under dispute, in my opinion, credit cannot be denied to the appellant.

4. With regard to distribution of credit by the head office of appellant, I find that the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has held that the said office has not availed the Cenvat credit of service tax paid by the bankers, and thus, there was no requirement for obtaining registration certificate as service distributor. I am in agreement with the views expressed by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals).

5. In view of above, there is no infirmity in the impugned order and therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.

(Dictated and pronounced in the open Court)

(S.K. MOHANTY) MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

Anita 0 3