TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 1597X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d utilized for providing taxable output service - Demand do not sustain. CENVAT Credit - duty paying documents - Rule 9 of CCR - reason for rejection is that post offices are not registered with the department and such Statements / bills / invoices raised by them do not become a valid document prescribed under Rule 9 - Held that:- Appellant has adduced proof of the Registration Certification No. TMPAS5321NST001 issued to the Senior Post Master, Head Post office, Trichy, copy of which has also been filed in pages 46-47 of the paper book. This being so, just because the registration certificate has not been mentioned in the TRC document issued by the Post Master, this by itself should not be a reason for denial of input service credit, esp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... envat credit of ₹ 2,04,81,127/- availed by appellants during 2007-08 on such capital goods which had been removed from outside the premises are liable to be recovered under Rule 14 of the CCR 2004 read with proviso to Section 73 (1) of the Finance Act, 1994. 2. It also appeared that appellants have taken credit amounting to ₹ 9,83,075/- during the period April 2007 to September 2008 on the basis of Schedule of TRC Collection and Payment Statement issued by the Post Master, Head Post office, Trichy. It appeared that documents on the basis of which above credit had been taken were not in accordance with Rule 9 of CCR and hence credit has been wrongly taken. Accordingly, show cause notice dt. 17.10.2012 was issued to the appella ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 80 days was done away with effect from 1.4.2008. So whatever the credit reversed, would be immediately available as credit, which makes the situation revenue-neutral. iv) The issue per se has been already decided in the appellant s own case by the Tribunal decision reported in 2017-TIOL-2026-CESTAT-DEL. v) With respect to demand of ₹ 9,83,075/- credit was taken on the basis of Statement issued by Post Master who is registered with the Central Excise Department, Trichy vide service tax registration No. TMPAS5321NST001. Ld.Advocate drew our attention to copy of Registration Certificate in pages 46 and 47 of the paper book. vi) The statements of Post Master are having details of amount collected, commission, service tax and net ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... led goods, as such. By applying the provisions of Rule 3 (5) the credit availed on all these goods were sought to be recovered. We find no legal justification for recovery of Cenvat credit, otherwise duly taken on capital goods by the appellant. Rule 3 provides for credit of duty paid on capital goods for provider of taxable service. The objection of the Revenue in the present case is found to be on technical basis only. Admittedly, there is no allegation against the appellant that credit was availed on any ineligible capital goods or clearance/diversion of such capital goods to a third party. The capital goods on which credit was taken were installed and utilized by the appellant at different locations in Rajasthan, for rendering taxa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... party, the Revenue is not justified in denying credit on such capital goods which are admittedly installed and utilized for providing taxable output service. Considering the nature of output service provided by the appellant, all over the State of Rajasthan, it is not correct to presume that the credit availed capital goods should be installed/available in a single registered premises. The appellants are paying service tax on services rendered from various premises using these capital goods. Such payment of service tax is being accepted by Revenue. For providing such output service the capital goods on which credit has been availed were used. As such, we find no justification to demand and recover the credit availed by the appellant on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ave been indicated in all such documents. This omission of mentioning registration number is only a curable defect. In any case, it is also to be kept in mind that issuing authority is an authority of the Department of Posts, which is the Department of the Govt. of India and surely, credibility has to be given to such certificates. It is also not an allegation that individual input service credits indicated in the TRC documents are by themselves not ineligible or otherwise improper. 5.4 In these circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the denial of credit amount of ₹ 9,83,075/- on the basis of TRC document issued by the Post master is unjustified. The demand to the contrary in the impugned order cannot then be sustaine ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
