2025 (7) TMI 559 - AT - Service Tax

CENVAT Credit - duty paying documents - Advice of Transfer Debit Bills issued by their Circle Office at Kolkata is valid document for availment of credit as prescribed under Rule 9 of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 or not - Extended period of limitation - HELD THAT - In this case it is not in dispute that the appellant has used capital goods and services for providing output services and taken cenvat credit on Advice of Transfer Debit Bills issued by the Head Quarters. As the said Advice of Transfer Debit Bills is containing all the details as per Rule 9 of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 in that circumstances following the ratio of the appellant s own case 2024 (12) TMI 883 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD it is held that the appellant is entitled to take cenvat credit on Advice of Transfer Debit Bills issued by the Head Quarters. In view of this there are no merit in the impugned order and the same is set aside. Extended period of limitation - HELD THAT - The whole of the demand has been raised against the appellant by invoking extended period of limitation. As the appellant is a Public Sector Undertaking in that circumstances there can be no malafide intention on the part of the appellant to take inadmissible cenvat credit . In that circumstances the extended period of limitation is not invokable. The appellant succeeds on merits as well as on limitation - Consequently no demand is sustainable against the appellant and no penalty can be imposed on the appellant - Appeal allowed.

Summary

The Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT Kolkata) allowed the appellant, a Public Sector Undertaking engaged in telecommunication services, to avail Cenvat credit on "Advice of Transfer Debit Bills" issued by their Head Quarters. The Tribunal held that such bills, containing all details as prescribed under Rule 9 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, are valid documents for credit, following the appellant's own precedent (2024 (12) TMI 883-CESTAT Allahabad). The Tribunal further ruled that the extended period of limitation is not invokable against a Public Sector Undertaking absent malafide intent. Consequently, the impugned order denying credit and imposing penalty was set aside, with the Tribunal stating that "no demand is sustainable against the appellant and no penalty can be imposed." The appeal was allowed with consequential relief.