9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2014 (5) TMI 765X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t, 1985. The goods manufactured were cleared through various dealers on payment of Central Excise duty. The appellant during the period of dispute i.e. from 01/10/06 to 31/12/10 paid sales commission to their dealers against their debit notes. Since, the dealers had paid service tax on the sales commission received from the appellant under Business Auxiliary Services, the appellant also reimbursed the service tax to the dealers, as the debit notes issued by the dealers also mentioned service tax paid on the sales commission. The appellant took Cenvat credit of the service tax so reimbursed to the dealers. Total Cenvat credit so taken by the appellant during the period from October 2006 to December 2010 was Rs. 93,86,868/-. The department is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... esh Chhibber, Advocate, the learned Counsel for the appellant, pleaded that the appellant pay sales commission to their dealers against sales made through them, that the sales commission is paid by the appellant to their dealers against debit notes issued by them, that the debit notes contain all the information, which is required to be mentioned in an invoice, that the Tribunal in the case of Chemplast Sanmar Ltd. vs. CCE reported in (2009) 21 S.T.T. 283, has held that Cenvat credit on the basis of debit notes would be admissible when the debit note contained all the required details as are required in an invoice or challan and Cenvat credit cannot be denied solely on the ground that the document was titled as debit note, that same view ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... envat credit on the basis of invalid documents, longer limitation period under proviso to Section 11A (1) has been correctly invoked and penalty on them under Rule 15 (2) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 readwith Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act has been correctly imposed. She, therefore, pleaded that there is no infirmity in the impugned order. 6. We have considered the submissions from both the sides and perused the records. 7. The only point of dispute in this case is as to whether the appellant could avail the Cenvat credit of service tax paid on the Business Auxiliary Service availed by them on the basis of debit notes issued by their dealers. The Commissioner has disallowed the Cenvat credit and has confirmed its demand alongwith ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le and service tax credit has to be allowed on the basis of such document. However, in this case, the Commissioner has not examined this aspect and has simply disallowed the credit on the basis that the documents on the basis of which the Cenvat credit has been availed were titled 'debit notes' and not invoices. The impugned order, therefore, is not sustainable and the same has to be set aside and the matter has to be remanded for denovo adjudication after examining as to whether the debit notes contained all the information which is required to be mentioned in an invoice in terms of Rule 4A of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 and if this is so, the Cenvat credit has to be allowed. 8. The impugned order is, therefore, set aside and the matter i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
