Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2019 (10) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (10) TMI 498 - AT - Service TaxCENVAT Credit - duty paying documents - inadmissible documents - April, 2009 to September, 2010 - Rule 9 (1) and 9 (2) of Cenvat Credit Rules - Time Limitation - HELD THAT:- The use of word “shall” in Rule 9 (1) makes the provision mandatory and it becomes clear that to avail cenvat credit mandatorily the documents as mentioned therein with such particulars as mentioned shall be furnished. In the present case no doubt the appellant has placed the invoice for availing the cenvat credit. Apparently and admittedly, the invoice is not issued in the name of the appellant, but in the name of Cameron (Score) PTE Ltd., Singapore. The person, who is named in the invoice can only avail the cenvat credit, as per the said rule. The subsequent argument on behalf of appellant that there have been the corrections in various invoices in the name of the appellant but there is no certification on record about those corrections to have been made by the service provider. Rule 9 (b) itself speaks about the supplementary invoices. The appellant could have invoked the said rule - In absence thereof the statutory mandate in rule 9 cannot be overlooked in view of the oral defences of the appellant. The fact that services have been received in India is also not coming out from all of the invoices - even the argument that the substantial benefit cannot be denied due to mere procedural lapse is not sustainable to extend any benefit to the appellant. Time Limitation - HELD THAT:- No doubt the period of demand is herein is April 2009 to 2010 and show cause notice was issued in February, 2013 with a corrigendum thereof in February, 2015, but, it is clear that liability of the service recipient settled abroad has been taken over by the appellant without having invoice being generated in his favour. No authentication has been received by the appellant about relevant changes as are impressed upon to be the basis for entitling appellant to avail credit. The said act and conduct to my opinion is definitely an act which is done with an intent to cause loss to the Government Exchequer - The Department is therefore held entitled to invoke the extended period of limitation. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
|