2016 (10) TMI 1036 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - duty paying documents - denial on the ground that debit note is not prescribed document for availing Cenvat credit and such debit notes do not bear the information required in terms of Rule 9 of CCR - Held that - in various judgments it has been held that the Cenvat credit is admissible on the strength of debit note - reliance placed in the case of Godrej Consumer Products Ltd Vs. Commr. Of C. Ex. Indore 2010 (8) TMI 405 - CESTAT NEW DELHI - As regard the information to be mentioned on the debit notes it is found that more or less all the information required to be mentioned in terms of Rule 9 of CCR appeared on the debit notes - credit allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues Involved:
- Availment of Cenvat credit based on debit notes
- Denial of Cenvat credit by adjudicating authority and first appellate authority
- Compliance with Rule 9 of CCR regarding information on debit notes

Analysis:

1. Availment of Cenvat credit based on debit notes:
The appellant in this case availed Cenvat credit on the strength of debit notes issued by the service provider. Both the adjudicating authority and the first appellate authority denied the Cenvat credit, arguing that debit notes are not a prescribed document for availing Cenvat credit and that the debit notes did not contain the required information as per Rule 9 of the CENVAT Credit Rules (CCR). This denial led to the appellant filing an appeal against the impugned order.

2. Judicial Precedents and Arguments:
The appellant's counsel cited several judgments to support the admissibility of Cenvat credit based on debit notes. The counsel argued that the information on the debit notes, such as the appellant's name, address, rate, and amount of service tax, along with some containing the service tax registration number, fulfilled the requirements of Rule 9. In cases where the registration number was missing, the appellant provided a copy of the registration certificate. The counsel's submission emphasized that the Rule 9 requirements were met, justifying the allowance of Cenvat credit based on the debit notes.

3. Revenue's Position and Decision:
On the contrary, the Assistant Commissioner representing the Revenue reiterated the findings of the impugned order, maintaining the denial of Cenvat credit. However, after considering the arguments from both sides, the Judicial Member found that the issue of admissibility of Cenvat credit on debit notes had been settled in previous judgments cited by the appellant's counsel. Additionally, the Member noted that the information required by Rule 9 was present on the debit notes, and in cases where the registration number was absent, the appellant had submitted the necessary documentation. Consequently, the Member overturned the impugned order and allowed the appeal, stating that there was no valid reason to deny Cenvat credit based on the debit notes.

4. Final Decision:
Ultimately, the Judicial Member pronounced the order on 5/10/16, setting aside the impugned order and ruling in favor of the appellant, thereby allowing the availed Cenvat credit based on the debit notes. This judgment highlights the importance of compliance with legal provisions and the significance of providing necessary documentation to support claims for Cenvat credit.