Commissioner Of Central Excise & S.T., ... vs M/S. Meghmani Organics Limited

(Arising out of OIA-02/2013/AHD-I/CE/AK/COMMR-A/AHD dated 17.01.2013, passed by Commissioner (Appeals) Central Excise, & S.T., Ahmedabad)

Commissioner of Central Excise & S.T., Ahmedabad : Appellant (s)

VERSUS

M/s. Meghmani Organics Limited : Respondent (s)

Represented by :

For Appellant (s) : Shri T.K. Sikdar, Authorised Representative For Respondent (s) : Shri Paritosh Gupta, Advocate

For approval and signature :

Mr. H.K. Thakur, Honble Member (Technical)

1 Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?

No 2 Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?

No 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?

Seen 4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?

Yes

CORAM :

Mr. H.K. Thakur, Honble Member (Technical)

Date of Hearing / Decision : 14.07.2015

ORDER No. A/11003/2015 Dated 14.07.2015

Per : Mr. H.K. Thakur;

This appeal has been filed by the Revenue with respect to OIA No. 02/2013/AHD-I/CE/AK/COMMR-A/AHD dated 17.01.2013.

2. Shri T.K. Sikdar (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue argued that appellant has taken credit with respect to C&F Agent Service, Courier Services which is not admissible for CENVAT credit under Rule 2(2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 as either the services are incurred beyond the factory premises or the services availed are not in relation to the manufacturing activity. That certain credit has been disallowed to the appellant on the ground that cenvatable documents are not showing the registration number of the unit who is providing taxable services to the appellant. Learned AR, therefore, strongly defended the order passed by the first appellate authority.

3. Shri Paritosh Gupta (Advocate) appearing on behalf of the Respondent argued that the issue of admissibility of Courier Service has been held to be admissible in their own case as per following:-

(a) Meghmani Organics Limited vs. CCE, Ahmedabad  [2012 (26) STR 555 (Tri. Ahmd.)]

(b) Meghachem Industries vs. CCE, Ahmedabad  [2011 (23) STR 472 (Tri. Ahmd.)] That certain cenvat credit has been disallowed to the Respondent on the ground that Registration number of the service provider has not been mentioned in the invoices. Learned Advocate relied upon the case laws of General Manager, BSNL vs. CCE, Lucknow  [2014 (36) STR 445 (Tri. Del.)] and Imagination Technologies India Pvt. Limited vs. CCE, Pune - [2011 (23) STR 661 (Tri. Mumbai)]. He also go through the provisions of Rule 9(2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 to argue that if certain discrepancies are noted in the documents then the same can be got rectified by the proper officer. That necessary certificate showing the registration number of the service provider from the jurisdictional Central Excise officer was also produced before the lower authorities. It was his case that cenvat credit was correctly availed.

4. Heard both sides and perused the case records. So far as the admissibility of cenvat credit is concerned, the same is covered by the case law of this Bench in the appellants own case of Meghmani Organics Limited vs. CCE, Ahmedabad (supra) and Meghachem Industries vs. CCE, Ahmedabad (supra), wherein it is held that cenvat credit of Courier Services and CHA up to the place of export are admissible. Appellants case is therefore covered by the ratio laid down by this Bench and credit with respect to Courier Service and C&F Agent service, in relation to export is admissible.

5. So far as denial of cenvat credit with respect to certain documents on which registration number of service provider was not indicated, it is observed that Respondent subsequently produced necessary certificates from the jurisdictional Central Excise authorities showing registration number of the service provider. As per the provisions contained in Rule 9(2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, if documents does not contain all the particulars but contains details of service tax paid, description of taxable services etc. then the same can be got verified from the jurisdictional Central Excise officers. Further, the procedural irregularities can not be made the basis for denying the cenvat credit. Accordingly, cenvat credit was admissible to the appellant on the issue of certain documents for which necessary registration number etc. were provided by the Respondent.

6. In view of the above discussions, the appeal filed by the Revenue is rejected.

(Order dictated and pronounced in the Court)

(H.K. Thakur) Member (Technical) .KL

2