TMI Blog2019 (11) TMI 229X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ervice recipient is Rampura Agucha Mines the short form thereof cannot be ruled out to be RAM which is, specifically, mentioned in the said invoices. Department has not come up with any documentary or otherwise evidence to substitute said RAM mentioned in the invoice to someone else than the service recipient - Not only this, the Appellant has also produced on record the copies of the supplementary invoices where RAM is clarifying to mean as R.A, Mines of Hindustan Zinc Ltd. In the given circumstances, the findings of Commissioner Appeals that the impugned letters are not the integral part of the invoices they being of a bit prior to the invoice are not reasonably sustainable. CBEC Circular No. 441/7/99 dated 23.02.1999 - HELD THAT:- This Circular itself in para 3 thereof directed that the adjudicating authorities of the Department to ensure that show cause notices are not issued for procedural lapses as mentioned in the Notification without making proper enquiries and it has to be issued only the enquiry and it is only if Assistant Commissioner is satisfied that the credit availed is incorrect that the adjudication should be started. Extended period of limitation - HELD THAT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erein. It is impressed upon that the invoices, specifically, mention RAM while giving the Bill number to the said invoice. Learned Counsel has also impressed upon the respective letters as were issued for the respective invoices submitting that those letters were the integral part of the invoices as is clear from the facts that those letters bear the respective bill number as well as the respective amount of taxable service receipt. It is submitted that these documents clarify that the invoices duly mentioned the name of the service recipient. In addition, it is submitted that copies of these letters were even provided to the Commissioner (Appeals) who has failed to appreciate the same. 2.2 Learned Counsel has further brought to the notice that the department conducted an audit of the Appellant way back in the year February, 2011 (15 to 19 February, 2011). It is pointed out that the period undertaken at the time of said audit is the same as the one in the impugned show cause notice and the objection raised was also the same as the one mentioned herein. The Appellant has duly replied to the letter dated 13.06.2011 vide which the aforesaid shortcomi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e department herein has denied the Cenvat credit of service tax availed on the strength of the impugned invoices (7 in number) as were issued by the input service provider for want of compliance of Rule 9 of Cenvat credit Rules 2004. It is, therefore, foremost necessary to peruse the Rule, Rule 9(2) of CCR, 2004 being precisely relevant. It reads as follows : (2) No CENVAT credit under sub-rule(1) shall be taken unless all the particulars as prescribed under the Central Excise Rules, 2002 or the Service Tax Rules, 1994, as the case may be, are contained in the said document: Provided that if the said document does not contain all the particulars but contains the details of duty or service tax payable, description of the goods or taxable service, assessable value, Central Excise or Service tax Registration number of the person issuing the invoice, as the case may be, name and address of the factory or warehouse or premises of first or second stage dealers or provider of taxable service, and the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise or the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, as the case may be, is satisfied that the goods or services cover ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ns the letters also bear not only the name of the Appellant but also the name of the service recipient i.e Rampura Agucha Mines. 6. Not only this, the Appellant has also produced on record the copies of the supplementary invoices where RAM is clarifying to mean as R.A, Mines of Hindustan Zinc Ltd. In the given circumstances, the findings of Commissioner Appeals that the impugned letters are not the integral part of the invoices they being of a bit prior to the invoice are not reasonably sustainable. In view of the already observed facts that the only and only purpose of these letters is to be a better clarity to the contents of the invoice, the bill number and the amount whereof is mentioned in the said letter and also for the reason that none of the letter is post dated to the invoice. Hence, the findings that these are not the integral part of the invoice are not sustainable and are liable to be set aside. It is also observed that the Commissioner (Appeals) has mentioned that these letters otherwise cannot be considered for want of rectified invoices to have not been put forth before him. But as already observed above from the copies of grounds of appeal as was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vices from M/s Apex Encon Projects Ltd. Accordingly, it stands clear that the entire issue was in the notice of the department since February, 2011. The notice of 30.05.2013 is definitely beyond one year of the said date of knowledge, hence is definitely barred by limitation. Also in view of letter dated 22.11.2011 there seems no reason to allege suppression on part of the Appellant. Seen from any of these findings, I hold that department was not entitled to invoke the extended period of limitation. 10. Above all, it has been already a settled principle that a substantive benefit cannot be denied on procedural grounds. I draw my support from the decision of this Tribunal Allahabad bench in the case of Appitech Computers Pvt. Ltd. ECE Lucknow 2019 (21) GSTL 513 wherein it has been held that in case of failure to mention details in invoices/documents as that of name, address, registration number, amount of service tax payable, etc. in the invoices. The Cenvat credit cannot be denied this bench also in the case of Gora Mal Hari Ram Ltd. Vs. CCE CST Alwar reported as 2018 (11) TMI 902, while appreciating the aforesaid CBEC Circular has affirmed the view that substa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
