2025 (2) TMI 1197 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT Credit - eligibility to avail Cenvat Credit on the basis of ISD challans where ISD distribute the credit of more than one common input services invoiced by issuing a single challan rather than issuing one challan for distributing credit for each common input service or not - levy of penalty - HELD THAT - The said issue has been examined in the case of Arti Infra Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE ST Lucknow 2018 (4) TMI 55 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD wherein this Tribunal observed that I observe that no specific Performa of the invoice have been notified or prescribed under Rule 4A(2) of S.T.R. but the requirement of the said Rule is that the invoice should contain the details as mentioned therein. Further I observe that in view of the rulings of Superior Courts Cenvat Credit cannot be denied on technical grounds. It was also observed that there is no objection at the end of ISD and the ISD is also registered under the Service Tax and filing returns. Accordingly held that the Cenvat Credit availed was proper and admissible in respect of banking and other financial services. Further the fact is noted the ISD Challan on the basis of which appellant has the credit having all the details for availment of Cenvat Credit. Further if at all there is a discrepancy in the invoice issued by the ISD the proceedings were required to be initiated against the ISD first and thereafter to deny Cenvat Credit to the appellant. But no proceedings have been initiated against the ISD distributor of the Cenvat Credit. In that circumstances Cenvat Credit cannot be denied to the appellants. In the facts and circumstances of the case no penalty is imposable. Conclusion - i) The appellant is entitled to avail Cenvat Credit on consolidated ISD challans containing all requisite details notwithstanding the absence of separate challans for each input service. ii) Penalty is also not imposable. There are no merit in the impugned order - appeal allowed.

Summary

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions considered by the Tribunal are:

• Whether the appellant is eligible to avail Cenvat Credit on the basis of Input Service Distributor (ISD) challans issued on a consolidated basis for multiple common input services, rather than issuing a separate challan for each input service, as required under Rule 4A(2) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 and Rule 9(1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004;
• Whether denial of Cenvat Credit on the ground of procedural non-compliance in the format of ISD challans is justified, particularly when the credit was availed based on such consolidated challans;
• Whether the liability and penalty imposed on the appellant for availing credit on such ISD challans is sustainable, especially when no proceedings have been initiated against the ISD who distributed the credit;
• Whether the impugned order exceeded the scope of the Show Cause Notice by denying credit on grounds not originally raised;
• Whether penalty is imposable on the appellant under the facts and circumstances of the case.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Eligibility to avail Cenvat Credit on consolidated ISD challans

Relevant legal framework and precedents: The relevant provisions are Rule 4A(2) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994, which prescribes the manner of issuance of ISD invoices/challans, and Rule 9(1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, which governs the documents required for availing Cenvat Credit. The Tribunal relied heavily on the precedent set in the case of Art Infra Solutions Pvt. Ltd., where it was held that the absence of a prescribed proforma under Rule 4A(2) means that the invoice/challan must merely contain the details specified in the rule, not necessarily in a particular format.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal observed that the ISD had issued a single challan consolidating credits of various common input services instead of issuing separate challans for each service. However, the challan contained all the requisite details necessary for availing credit. The Tribunal emphasized that no specific proforma for ISD invoices/challans has been notified under Rule 4A(2), and the requirement is only that the invoice should contain the prescribed details.

Key evidence and findings: The appellant's ISD challans were scrutinized during the audit, and it was found that these were consolidated challans. However, the challans did contain all necessary details for credit availment. The Tribunal also noted that the ISD was registered under Service Tax and was filing returns, indicating compliance on the part of ISD.

Application of law to facts: Applying the principles from the precedent, the Tribunal held that the mere issuance of consolidated challans by the ISD does not invalidate the credit if the details required under the rules are present. The Tribunal further noted that Cenvat Credit cannot be denied on mere technical grounds, especially when the substantive requirement of detail disclosure is met.

Treatment of competing arguments: The Revenue argued that the consolidated challans were invalid documents under the relevant rules, justifying denial of credit. The appellant contended that this issue was no longer res-integra and that even if the challans were invalid, it was a procedural lapse which should not lead to denial of credit. The Tribunal sided with the appellant, relying on the precedent and the principle that procedural lapses should not result in credit denial.

Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that the appellant was entitled to avail Cenvat Credit on the basis of the consolidated ISD challans issued, as they contained all necessary details and no specific proforma was prescribed. Denial of credit on this ground was unwarranted.

Issue 2: Denial of credit on grounds beyond the Show Cause Notice and liability on appellant when no proceedings initiated against ISD

Relevant legal framework and precedents: Principles of natural justice and procedural fairness require that adjudication be confined to the grounds specified in the Show Cause Notice. Further, liability for credit irregularities should be fixed on the person responsible for the lapse.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal noted that the impugned order denied credit on findings beyond the scope of the Show Cause Notice. It further observed that if there was any discrepancy in the ISD challan, proceedings should have been initiated against the ISD who distributed the credit rather than the appellant recipient.

Key evidence and findings: No proceedings were initiated against the ISD, despite the alleged procedural irregularities in challan issuance. The appellant had availed credit in good faith based on ISD challans.

Application of law to facts: The Tribunal applied the principle that credit cannot be denied to the appellant on account of procedural lapses attributable to the ISD, especially when the ISD was not proceeded against. It also held that the appellant cannot be penalized for lapses not attributable to it.

Treatment of competing arguments: The Revenue sought to hold the appellant liable for credit availed on invalid challans. The appellant argued that liability, if any, should lie with the ISD. The Tribunal accepted the appellant's argument, emphasizing the need for proceedings against the ISD first.

Conclusion: The denial of credit and imposition of liability on the appellant was held to be unsustainable in absence of any proceedings against the ISD. The impugned order was set aside on this ground.

Issue 3: Imposition of penalty on the appellant

Relevant legal framework: Penalties under the relevant statutes are generally imposed where there is willful evasion or contravention of provisions.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: Given that the appellant availed credit based on ISD challans containing all requisite details and that the procedural lapse was not attributable to the appellant, the Tribunal found no justification for imposing penalty.

Application of law to facts: The Tribunal held that penalty is not imposable on the appellant under the facts and circumstances.

Conclusion: The penalty imposed on the appellant was deleted.

Issue 4: Scope of Show Cause Notice and denial of credit on extraneous grounds

The Tribunal observed that the impugned order denied credit on findings beyond the scope of the Show Cause Notice, which is impermissible. The appellant's contention that such denial is beyond the scope of the notice was accepted.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

The Tribunal succinctly summarized the legal position in reliance on the precedent as follows:

"Further, I observe that no specific Performa of the invoice have been notified or prescribed under Rule 4A(2) of S.T.R. but the requirement of the said Rule is that the invoice should contain the details as mentioned therein. Further, I observe that in view of the rulings of Superior Courts, Cenvat Credit cannot be denied on technical grounds. It was also observed that there is no objection at the end of ISD, and the ISD is also registered under the Service Tax and filing returns. Accordingly, held that the Cenvat Credit availed was proper and admissible in respect of banking and other financial services."

The Tribunal held:

• The appellant is entitled to avail Cenvat Credit on consolidated ISD challans containing all requisite details, notwithstanding the absence of separate challans for each input service;
• Denial of credit on mere procedural grounds or technical lapses is impermissible;
• Proceedings for irregularity in ISD challans must be initiated against the ISD first; the appellant recipient cannot be held liable in absence of such proceedings;
• Penalty is not imposable on the appellant under the facts and circumstances;
• The impugned order denying credit and imposing penalty is set aside and the appeal is allowed with consequential relief.