Commissioner Of Central ... vs India Cements Ltd

[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 50-2012 dated 11/09/2012 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise(Appeals), GUNTUR]

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? 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

Commissioner of Central Excise,Customs & Service Tax TIRUPATI 9/86-A...BEHIND WEST CHURCH COMPOUND, AMARAVATHI NAGAR, M.R.PALLI, - 517502 AP Appellant(s)

Versus

India Cements Ltd YERRAGUNTLA MANDAL CHILMAKUR POST KADAPA DISTRICT KADAPA DISTRICT - AP Respondent(s)

Appearance:

Mr. Pakshi Rajan, A.R. For the Appellant

Mr. B. Raghavendra, Adv For the Respondent

Date of Hearing: 07/07/2015

Date of Decision:

CORAM:

HON'BLE SMT ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Final Order No. 21698 / 2015

Per : ARCHANA WADHWA

Being aggrieved with the order passed by Commissioner (Appeals), Revenue has filed the present appeal.

2. After hearing both sides, I find that the dispute relates to the availment of CENVAT credit of service tax during the period October 2010 to December 2010. The Revenue had initiated proceedings against the appellant on the ground that the documents on the basis of which credit stands availed are not proper documents inasmuch as the same are not in the shape of invoices/bills containing full details as envisaged under Rule 4A of the Service Tax Rules 1994. The Commissioner (Appeals) has taken note of the fact that the respondent had submitted rectified invoices/bills subsequently and as such it is to be treated as proper documents for the purpose of availment of credit. In respect of a part of the credit belonging to the services availed from the DG, SPF he has observed as under:

13. It is also pointed out by the Adjudicating Authority in para 6 of the impugned order that the assessee had taken Cenvat Credit of Rs.14,93,507/- based on letter No. C2/SPF/1199/lCL-CHK/1955-10 dated 12.04.2010 issued by the Director General SPF: AP, Secunderabad. The letter issued by the DG, SPF, Secunderabad interalia state that DG,SPF was requesting the assessee to make the said payment towards arrears of Service requesting the assessee to make the said payments towards arrears of Service Tax on the service of Guard Charges provided to the factory i.e. M/s lndia Cements Ltd; Chilamakur from 01-05-2006 to 28-02-2010. Further, it was observed from the said letter that, the payment of service tax by the Special Police Force was made only during 2010, as the SPF was contesting the payment of service tax with the Government and as their request was not considered by the Government, the SPF had requested the assessee to pay the Service tax amount of Rs.14,93,507/-. Since the same was to be paid by them under Security Agency services to the jurisdictional Service Tax Range under Hyderabad-II Commissionerate. It was observed that the assessees had input credit of the said tax under the Security agency service on the basis of letter issued by SPF, Secunderabad. ........

(1) Name of the Service Provider (2) Service tax Registration (3) Description of Services provided (4) Taxable value (5) Service Tax payable (6) invoice No. and dated 16.11.2011.

14. In the, present case the services received by the assessee during the period 5/2006 to 2/2010. The letter was issued by the service provider on 12,04.2010. Since the service provider is a Govt. firm and there is no alternative to get the things done. However the Director General Special Protection Force, A.P. Secunderabad was already registered with the department and submitted all the details. Since the Service tax amount was not collected from their customers they have issued a letter and enclosed the formal invoice indicating all the details of the as envisaged under Service Tax law. Accordingly, the Cenvat Credit taken by the appellant is allowed.

3. Accordingly he has set aside the impugned order of the original adjudicating authority confirming the demands and reviving the penalties.

4. Revenue in their memo of appeal have again reiterated the same reasoning as adopted by the original adjudicating authority. It is their submission that inasmuch as originally no valid documents were provided, the credit cannot be allowed to the respondent. However, I find that they are not contesting the receipt of the service by the appellant and payment of service tax by the service provider. In the absence of any such allegation to that effect, I agree with the learned Commissioner (appeals) that the sustentative benefit should not be denied on some procedural grounds. All the information required to be contained in the bills/invoices was fully supplied to the Revenue and as such, denial of credit is not to be adhered to.

5. In view of the above I find no justifiable reasons to interfere with the impugned order of Commissioner (appeals). Revenues appeal is accordingly rejected.

(Order pronounced in open court on )

ARCHANA WADHWA JUDICIAL MEMBER

pnr

2