2025 (5) TMI 481 - AT - Service Tax

CENVAT Credit - duty paying documents - credit be denied only on the account that the bills are not in the names of the appellant and is not a proper document for claiming the CENVAT credit as per Rule 9 of the CENVAT Credit Rules - HELD THAT - In this case the only ground on which the CENVAT credit has been denied to the appellant is that his name does not figure in the document issued by M/s Evergreen Shipping Agency (India) Pvt. Ltd. Mumbai which had issued the document in favour of M/s Adhunik Niryat Ispat Limited the original importer. It is further found that once he has purchased the goods on high sea sale basis he stepped into the shoe of the original importer and later filed Bill of Entry before the Customs for clearance of the goods imported which was permitted by the customs. The identical issue has been considered in the case of Karaikal Chlorates 2022 (9) TMI 429 - CESTAT CHENNAI wherein the Tribunal after considering the identical facts has held that After purchase of the goods by the appellant these services providers had provided services to the appellant for clearances of the goods. However the invoices were issued in the name of original importer M/s. Mitsubishi Corporation India Pvt. Ltd. It is clear from the records that the appellant had paid service tax for the services availed. I find that denial of credit alleging that invoices mention the name of the original importer is too technical and cannot be accepted. Similarly in the case of Mammon Concast Pvt. Ltd. 2021 (6) TMI 619 - CESTAT NEW DELHI the Tribunal has allowed the CENVAT credit to the person who has purchased the goods on high sea sales agreement basis. Conclusion - The impugned order denying CENVAT credit on the sole ground of invoice name mismatch is unsustainable in law. Appeal allowed.

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The primary legal issue considered in this appeal is whether the appellant is entitled to claim CENVAT credit on service tax paid on invoices issued by a shipping agency in the name of the original importer under a high sea sale arrangement, despite the invoices not being in the appellant's name. Specifically, the question is whether Rule 9 of the CENVAT Credit Rules prohibits claiming credit when the invoice is not issued in the name of the appellant who has purchased goods on a high sea sale basis and subsequently cleared the goods through customs by filing the Bill of Entry.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Entitlement to CENVAT Credit on High Sea Sale Purchases with Invoices in the Name of Original Importer

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The CENVAT Credit Rules, particularly Rule 9, govern the admissibility of credit and require that the credit be claimed on proper documents, typically invoices issued in the name of the claimant. The appellant's entitlement to credit is challenged on the ground that the invoices issued by M/s Evergreen Shipping Agency (India) Pvt. Ltd. are in the name of the original importer, M/s Adhunik Niryat Ispat Limited, and not in the appellant's name. Precedents relied upon include the decisions in Karaikal Chlorates Vs Commissioner of CGST & C.Ex, Puducherry and Mammon Concast Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of CGST, Customs & C.Ex., which dealt with similar issues of high sea sale transactions and entitlement to credit despite invoices not being in the purchaser's name.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court examined the nature of high sea sale transactions where goods are imported by an original importer, but ownership passes to the purchaser (appellant) before customs clearance. It was noted that the appellant had filed the Bill of Entry and paid customs duties, thereby stepping into the shoes of the original importer. The Court emphasized that the denial of credit solely on the technical ground that the invoices were not in the appellant's name is not sustainable. The Court referred to the reasoning in Karaikal Chlorates, where the Tribunal held that denial of credit on the basis of the invoice name being that of the original importer was too technical and could not be accepted, especially when the appellant had paid service tax and cleared the goods.

Key Evidence and Findings: The appellant produced invoices issued by the shipping agency to the original importer, proof of payment of customs and other duties, and Bills of Entry filed in their name for clearance of goods. The audit had found that service tax credit was availed on these invoices. The authorities denied credit only on the ground of invoice name mismatch, without disputing the actual payment or clearance of goods by the appellant.

Application of Law to Facts: Applying the principles established in the cited precedents, the Court found that the appellant, having purchased goods on high sea sale basis and cleared them through customs, is entitled to claim CENVAT credit on service tax paid on services related to those goods, even if the invoices are in the name of the original importer. The technicality of invoice name does not override the substantive right to credit where the appellant has fulfilled all other conditions.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Revenue's argument rested on strict compliance with Rule 9 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, emphasizing the requirement for invoices to be in the claimant's name. The Court, however, rejected this narrow interpretation, holding that the rule should not be applied in a manner that frustrates the legitimate entitlement of the purchaser in high sea sale transactions. The Court gave precedence to substance over form and relied on established Tribunal decisions to support this approach.

Conclusions: The Court concluded that the impugned order denying CENVAT credit on the sole ground of invoice name mismatch is unsustainable in law. The appellant is entitled to the credit claimed, and the appeal was allowed accordingly.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

"Denial of credit alleging that invoices mention the name of the original importer is too technical and cannot be accepted."

The Court established the core principle that in high sea sale transactions, the purchaser who clears the goods through customs and pays applicable duties is entitled to claim CENVAT credit on service tax paid, notwithstanding that the invoices for services are issued in the name of the original importer.

The Court emphasized that Rule 9 of the CENVAT Credit Rules should not be interpreted in a manner that defeats the substantive rights of the purchaser in such transactions by focusing solely on the invoice name as a technicality.

Final determination: The appeal was allowed, the impugned order denying credit was set aside, and consequential relief was granted to the appellant as per law.

← Previous Next →