Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... vs M/S. Saint Gobain Seva Engineerig India ...

[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 405/2011 dated 26/12/2011 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals-I), Bangalore.]

For approval and signature:

HON'BLE SMT. ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER

1 Whether Press Reporters 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 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? Seen 4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities? Yes

Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax BANGALORE-I POST BOX NO 5400, CR BUILDINGS, BANGALORE  560 001. Appellant(s)

Versus

M/s. SAINT GOBAIN SEVA ENGINEERIG INDIA LTD DEVANAHALLI ROAD, OFF OLD MADRAS ROAD, BANGALORE 560 049 Respondent(s)

Appearance:

Mr. S. Teli, Dy. Commissioner (AR) For the Appellant

None For the Respondent

Date of Hearing: 19/06/2015

Date of Decision: 19/06/2015

CORAM:

HON'BLE SMT. ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Final Order No. 21385 / 2015

Per : ARCHANA WADHWA

Being aggrieved with the order passed by Commissioner (A), Revenue has filed the present appeal. After hearing the learned DR, as nobody appeared for the respondents, I find that the sole issue required to be decided in the present appeal is as to whether the respondents can avail CENVAT credit of service tax paid by them on various services received and utilized, on the basis of debit notes. The Commissioner (A) has relied upon various decisions of the Tribunal laying down that such debit notes are eligible documents for the purpose of CENVAT credit. However, Revenue is in appeal that such debit notes were not giving full details as required in rule 4A(1)(iii) of Service Tax Rules, 1994.

2. It is seen that the original adjudicating authority has made certain observations that such documents do not contain full details but there is neither any reference to such non-mentioning of requisite particulars in the said debit notes nor is there any rebuttal by the original adjudicating authority to the respondents claim of the said debit notes disclosing full particulars. The Commissioner (A) has noted the said fact and has held that a mere observation by the adjudicating authority, without even disclosing or indicating the particulars not available in the said debit notes cannot be appreciated. Even in their memo of appeal, Revenue has not referred to any such particulars being not available in the debit notes. As such, I find no infirmity in the impugned order of the Commissioner (A). Revenues appeal is accordingly rejected.

(Order pronounced in open court)

ARCHANA WADHWA JUDICIAL MEMBER rv 2