M/S H F Metal Art (P) Ltd vs C.C.E. & St Jaipur

[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No. 64(SLM)ST/JPR-I/2014 dated 10.10.2014 passed by Commissioner (Appeals-I)-Jaipur]

For approval and signature:

Hon'ble 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?

M/s H F Metal Art (P) Ltd. ...Appellant

Vs.

C.C.E. & ST Jaipur Respondent

Appearance:

Mr. Bimal Jain, Advocate for the Appellant

Mr. M R Sharma, DR for the Respondent

CORAM:

Hon'ble Mr. S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial)

Date of Hearing.11.06.2015

FINAL ORDER NO. 52118 /2015

Per S. K. Mohanty (for the Bench):

Denial of cenvat credit on the input services is the subject matter of present dispute.

2. The cenvat credit taken by the appellant has been denied on the sole ground that the invoices, basing on which the credit has been taken are not proper documents as per Rule 9(2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Rule 4 (a) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994.

3. Heard the Ld. Counsel for both sides and perused the records.

4. The sample copies of invoices submitted before the authorities below, which are available in the case file, reveal that the disputed invoices have been issued containing information as provided in Rule 4(a) of the Service Tax Rules. Even assuming that all the information as required under the said rule have not been incorporated in the invoices, the cenvat credit cannot be denied in view of the proviso to Rule 9(2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, which provides that if the document does not contain all the particulars but contain the details of service tax payable, description of taxable service, assessable value, service tax registration number of person issuing the invoice, name and address of the factory or warehouse, then the Jurisdictional Central Excise Authorities shall allow the cenvat credit upon verification of the fact that the documents have been received and accounted for in the books of the recipient of the services. In the present case, since the invoices have been issued by the service provider in compliance with the requirement of Rule 4(a) of the Service Tax Rules, there was no justification for denying the cenvat benefit to the appellant on the alleged ground that the invoices issued by the service provider are not in conformity with the service tax Rules or Rule 9 of the Cenvat Credit Rules.

4. Therefore, I am of the view that the impugned order is not sustainable under the law and, therefore, the same is set aside and the appeal is allowed in favour of the appellant.

(Dictated and pronounced in open court)

(S.K. Mohanty)

Member(Judicial)

Neha

Page | 1