Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2016 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (12) TMI 155 - CESTAT NEW DELHIDenial of CENVAT credit - forged documents - the debit notes were not prescribed documents and did not contain the details as required in order to avail Cenvat credit - Held that: - The debit notes contained details with address of the person who issued the same as well as the recipient. The credit distributed were specified with period. The debit note is with enclosures which contained elaborate details regarding invoice date, the name of the provider of service, nature of service, amount of service tax paid on such invoice etc. All the particulars relevant and required in terms of Rule 9 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 are available in the said debit notes and its enclosures. We find in Shriram Pistons & Rings Ltd. vs. CCE, Ghaziabad [2012 (11) TMI 377 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI], the Tribunal examined similar set of facts and held that credit cannot be denied if the inputs have been received by a manufacturer under the invoices of the service providers issued in the name of head office, the head office had taken Cenvat credit and thereafter passed on the same to its manufacturing units, only on the ground that the said credits were passed on by letters and not by the document bearing the name “invoices” or “challans”. The only requirement is that the documents or letters issued by the head office should contain all the details which are required to be mentioned in the invoices/challans issued by the input service distributor. In the present case, we find there is no dispute regarding the eligibility of various input services for the credit. The dispute is more on the documentation followed by the Input Service Distributor. Debit note and its enclosures contained all the required details for a valid distribution of eligible credits - the denial of credit to the appellant is not based on any substantial legal provisions. The documentations followed by the Input Service Distributor in the present case contains the required/relevant particulars to enable the appellant to avail the credits. We find no justification for denial of credit on the grounds taken by the lower Authorities - appeal allowed - decided in favor of assessee.
|