2023 (3) TMI 230 - AT - Central Excise

Recovery of irregularly availed Cenvat Credit - ISD invoices did not contain the requisite details as required in terms of Rule 4A of Service Tax Rules, 1994 - No input services covered in the said ISD invoices were received by the appellant unit - credit transferred amount included a portion of credit transferred back by M/s. Pricol Ltd., Plant-I to Pricol ISD Registrant which was subsequently redistributed by the ISD registrant to the appellant unit and such credit is not permissible to be transferred by the ISD to the appellant in terms of Rule 7 of CCR, 2004.

HELD THAT:- The Hon’ble Tribunal in COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, SALEM VERSUS PRICOL LTD. [2012 (9) TMI 866 - CESTAT CHENNAI] have already decided that input service credit when distributed by the ISD, cannot be held as inadmissible on the pretext that such invoices did not contain all the particulars as required in terms of Rule 4A of CCR, 2004, when it was possible for the department to verify all the input service invoices on the basis of which the credit has been accumulated by ISD.

It is seen that the proceedings initiated against M/s. Pricol Limited, Plant-I, Coimbatore, on the issue of retransfer of ISD credit to M/s. Pricol Ltd., ISD was finalized by this Hon’ble Tribunal in M/S. PRICOL LTD. (PLANT I) , M/S. PRICOL LTD. VERSUS THE COMMISSIONER OF G.S.T. & CENTRAL EXCISE, COIMBATORE COMMISSIONERATE [2019 (2) TMI 25 - CESTAT CHENNAI] where it was held that it is evident that M/s. Pricol Ltd., Plant-I has only returned/reversed the exact quantum of Credit that was transferred to it in the first place by the M/s. Pricol Ltd., ISD. Such return/reversal has not enlarged the quantum of Credit that has been availed nor has there been any financial injury caused to the exchequer. This is then only a revenue neutral situation.

Appeal allowed - decided in favour of appellant.