TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 781X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ded by the dealers. The nature of the service is also clear from the Service Tax registration number, which is clearly for Business Auxiliary Service. In any case, when the appellant were paying the Service Tax and filing ST-3 Returns, such points could always have been clarified by the assessing officers. - Decided in favor of assessee. Jurisdiction - Held that:- since the appellants are a manufacturer of bathroom fittings chargeable to Central Excise duty and are registered with Commissionerate of Central Excise, Delhi-I, the Commissioner of Service Tax, Delhi, could not go into the question of Cenvat credit. - Decided in favor of assessee. - ST/57007/2013-ST(SM) - Final Order No. ST/A/54830/2014-SM(BR) - Dated:- 30-10-2014 - Shri Rakesh Kumar, Member (T) Shri S.K. Pahwa, Advocate, for the Appellant. Ms. Suchitra Sharma, DR, for the Respondent. ORDER The appellant are manufacturers of bathroom fittings charge-able to Central Excise duty. They are registered with the Central Excise authorities of the Central Excise Commissionerate, Delhi-l. Besides the Central Excise Registration, they also have taken Service Tax Registration for payment of Service Tax on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Finance Act, 1994. 2. The above show cause notice was adjudicated by the Addl. Commissioner vide order-in-original dated 10-2-2012 by which the above-mentioned Cenvat credit demand was confirmed under Rule 14 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 along with interest thereon under Section 75 ibid and besides this, while penalty of equal amount was imposed on the appellant under Rule 15(2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, another penalty of ₹ 1,000/- was imposed on the appellant under Section 77 of the Finance Act, 1994. On appeal being filed to the Commissioner (Appeals) against this order of the Addl. Commissioner, the Commissioner (Appeals) vide order-in-appeal dated 24-1-2013 upheld the Addl. Commissioner s order in toto. Against this order of the Addl. Commissioner, this appeal has been filed. 3. Heard both the sides. 4. Shri S.K. Pahwa, Advocate, ld. Counsel for the appellant pleaded that as regards Cenvat credit of ₹ 30,16,390/- taken on the basis of the debit notes, this credit is in respect of the service of procuring sales orders from the commission agents, tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he department itself has accepted the Service Tax payment from Shri Pradeep Chopra by treating him as provider of Business Auxiliary Service and, therefore, the purpose of permitting Cenvat credit to the appellant on the basis of the invoices issued by him, the department cannot challenge the assessment of tax at the end of the service provider. He also pleaded that the appellant is a manufacturer having Central Excise registration and the matters relating to availment of Cenvat credit are within the jurisdiction of Central Excise authorities and therefore, just because the appellant has taken Service Tax registration for the purpose of payment of Service Tax on the GTA service received by him, the Commissioner, Service Tax, Delhi cannot go into the issue of eligibility of the appellant for Cenvat credit and issue the show cause notice for recovery of the allegedly wrongly taken Cenvat credit and, therefore, the show cause notice has been issued without any jurisdiction. He emphasized that with regard to the eligibility of the appellant for Cenvat credit, the show cause notice could have been issued only by the Central Excise officers of the Central Excise, Delhi-I and not by the o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nvoked inasmuch as there is no basis for the appellant s plea that they had bona fide belief. 5.1 With regard to issue of jurisdiction, she further pleaded that since the appellant had also taken Service Tax registration in respect of the GTA service received by them on which they are required to pay Service Tax, the Commissioner, Service Tax, had jurisdiction over them and as such, the show cause notice issued for denial of this Cenvat credit cannot be said to be without jurisdiction. 5.2 She, therefore, pleaded that there is no infirmity in the impugned order. 6. I have considered the submissions from both the sides and perused the records. 7. As regards the first issue, on the point of Cenvat credit of ₹ 1,09,410/- issued on the basis of invoices issued by Shri Pradeep Chopra, on going through the invoices issued by Shri Pradeep Chopra, it is seen that these invoices mention the Service Tax registration number of Shri Pradeep Chopra and the same are invoice for the sales commission for procuring orders. The invoices mention that the value of the sales orders, the quantum of commission and the Service Tax paid. There is nothing in the invoices and there is no ot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... points could always have been clarified by the assessing officers. Once the Service Tax paid by the service provider has been accepted by the jurisdictional Central Excise authorities, as Service Tax on Business Auxiliary service, the Central Excise authority at the end of recipient of the service could not seek review of that assessment of the service at the time of considering its Cenvat credit. In view of this, I hold that the debit notes mention all the particulars, which are required to be mentioned in the invoices and the Cenvat credit has been correctly taken by the appellant. The Tribunal in a series of judgments has held that when the debit notes issued by the service provider under Rule 4A of the Service Tax Rules, 1994, mention all the informations required to be mentioned in an invoice, the Cenvat credit on the basis of such debit notes has to be allowed by treating the same as invoices. In view of this, denial of Cenvat credit of ₹ 30,16,390/- is also not sustainable. 9. Even as the issue of jurisdiction, there is merit in the appellant s plea that since the appellants are a manufacturer of bathroom fittings chargeable to Central Excise duty and are registe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
