Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + HC Central Excise - 2018 (6) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (6) TMI 435 - HC - Central ExciseCENVAT credit - duty paying documents - improper document (Debit notes) - Documents do not carry necessary details - Whether Central CENVAT Credit can be allowed on the basis of a document which does not carry required details as are provided under Rule 9(1) of CCR 2004? - Held that:- All the particulars as required under Rule 9(2) of Cenvat Credit Rules are undisputedly appearing on the debit note. Therefore the debit note is at par with the documents prescribed under Rule 9(1) of Cenvat Credit Rules 2004. The ratio of judgement in the case of Emmes Metals Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise [2016 (5) TMI 1046 - CESTAT MUMBAI], is squarely applicable in the present case, where it was held that whatever informations required in terms of Rule 4A in the document, more or less all the informations are appearing in the debit notes, therefore the debit notes can be accepted for allowing Cenvat Credit. There is no dispute raised by the department that the service were received and same was accounted for in the books of account of the appellant, therefore, the debit note containing all the details as required under the rule 9(2) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 is valid documents for the purpose of taking cenvat credit - the appellant is entitled for the Cenvat credit on the debit note. Taking into consideration the fact that even first authority while considering the matter has admitted the debit note which was produced though holding it to be in contravention under Rule 9 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 but in view of the different decisions of the tribunal, the view taken by the tribunal is required to be accepted and the same is accepted. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant-Revenue.
|