M/S. Mahanagar Gas Limited vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ...

[Arising out of Order-in- Appeal No. BR/41/M-V/2012 dtd. 10/7/2012 passed by the Commissioner(Appeals) Central Excise Mumbai]

For approval and signature:

Honble Mr Ramesh Nair, Member(Judicial)

=======================================================

1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see : No 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 : seen of the Order?

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

=======================================================

M/s. Mahanagar Gas Limited : Appellants

VS

Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-II : Respondent

Appearance

Ms. Padmavati Patil, Advocate for the Appellants Shri. N.N. Prabhudesai, Superintendent(A.R.) for the Respondent

CORAM:

Honble Mr. Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial)

Date of hearing: 25/2/2015 Date of decision: 25/2/2015 ORDER NO.

Per : Ramesh Nair

This appeal is directed against Order-in- Appeal No. BR/41/M-V/2012 dtd. 10/7/2012 passed by the Commissioner(Appeals) Central Excise Mumbai, wherein Ld. Commissioner(Appeals) has rejected the appeal of the appellant and upheld the order in original No. 90/5/DC/ADH/2012 dated 29/2/2012. The issue involved in present is whether the appellant is entitled for the Cenvat credit on the strength of debit note issued by the service provider.

2. Ms. Padmavati Patil, Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has availed Cenvat Credit of Rs. 57,874/- on the basis of debit note. The credit was denied only on the ground that debit note is not prescribed documents under Rule (9)(i) of Cenvat Rule or Rule 4(a) of Service Tax Rules, 1994. She submits that as per the Rule 9 (2) Cenvat Credit rules only requirement is that documents on the basis of which Cenvat Credit is availed, should contain certain information/details such as service tax payable, description of taxable service, assessable value, service tax registration Number of the person/assessee, who issue the invoices, and the services covered by the said documents have been received and accounted for in the books of account of receiver. She submits that in the debit note the said details are correctly appearing therefore the said document is valid documents for taking the Cenvat credit. She placed reliance on the following judgments, wherein Cenvat Credit on debit note has been allowed.:-

(a) CCE. Indore Vs. Grasim Industries Ltd[2011(24) STR 691(Tri-Del).

(b) CCE, Salem Vs. Pallipalayam Spinners Pvt. Ltd. [2010-TIOL-1723-CESTAT-MAD].

(c) Pharmalab Process Equipments Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE,[2009(242) ELT 467(Tri- Ahd)].

(d) CCE, Nashik Vs. Graphite (India) Ltd. [2007(212) ELT 54(Tri- Mumbai)].

(e) The supreme Industries. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Mumbai[2014-TIOL-115-CESTAT-MUM]

(f) CCE, Indore Vs. Gwalior Chemicals Industries Ltd. [2011(274) ELT 97 (Tri- Del.)]

3. On the other hand, Shri N.N. Prabhudesai, Ld. Superintendent (A.R.) reiterates the findings of the impugned order and submits that debit note is not prescribed documents for taking Cenvat credit, either in rule 9(i) of Cenvat Credit Rules or Rule 4(a) of Service Tax Rules 1994, therefore lower authority have correctly held that Cenvat Credit is inadmissible on the strength of debit note.

4. I have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides and perused the record.

5. On careful perusal of debit note, I observed that all the particulars as required under Rule 9(2) of Cenvat Credit Rules are undisputedly appearing on the debit note. Therefore the debit note is at par with the documents prescribed under Rule 9(1) of Cenvat Credit Rules 2004. On going through various judgments relied upon by the Ld. Counsel for the appellant, I find that the ratio of those judgments are squarely applicable in the present case. There is no dispute raised by the department that the service were received and same was accounted for in the books of account of the appellant, therefore, I am of the view that debit note containing all the details as required under the rule 9(2) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 is valid documents for the purpose of taking cenvat credit. As per my above discussion, I am of the view that the appellant is entitled for the Cenvat credit on the debit note, therefore impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed.

(Operative part pronounced in court)

Ramesh Nair Member (Judicial)

sk

4