TMI Blog2023 (5) TMI 719X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... STOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, [ 2017 (8) TMI 592 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] where it was held that Rule 4A of the Service Tax Rules, 1994, inter alia, at the relevant time, required the provider of taxable service, to issue, not later than fourteen days from the date of provisioning of taxable service, an invoice, bill or challan. The details, which were to be provided in such an invoice, bill or challan, are also set out in the Rule. Thus, cenvat credit cannot be disallowed in the hands of the service recipient by invoking Rule 4A (1) of the ST Rules even if the service provider issues such invoice beyond the prescribed period of 14days from the date of completion of service/receipt of payment. The obligation to issue t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Accountant for the Appellant (s) Shri P. K.Ghosh , Authorized Representative for the Revenue ORDER PER : P. K. CHOUDHARY : The present appeal has been filed by the M/s. Usha Martin Limited against the Order-in-Original No 37/Commissioner/10 dated 29.10.2010 passed by the Commissioner, Central Excise Service Tax, Jamshedpur, wherein the CENVAT Credit has been disallowed on supplementary invoices. Apart from the duty demand, equivalent Penalty has been imposed. The period in dispute involved is August 2008 and September 2008. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the service provider, M/s Maa Engineering ( service provider ), was not registered with the Department during the period 2005-06 to 2007-08. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... prescribed in Rule 4A(1) is mandatory and non-compliance thereof would render the document void. Hence, the present appeal before this Tribunal. 3. The Ld. Chartered Accountant appearing for the Appellant submitted that Rule 4A (1) of the STR 1994 is applicable to the service provider and not the Appellant service recipient and the said Rule does not prescribe any consequences in case where the issuance of a bill is delayed by the service provider. He placed reliance on the judgment of Hon ble Madras High Court in Commissioner of Central Excise, Salem vs. JSW Steels Ltd., 2018 (8) G.S.T.L. 153 (Mad.). He further submitted that there is no dispute regarding particulars in the supplementary invoices as prescribed in Rule 9(2) of CCR 200 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ituation would have been completely revenue neutral. He relied on the decision of the Tribunal in M/s. Secure Meters Ltd. vs. CCE, 2010 (18) STR 490 (Tri. Del.). He made detailed submissions to distinguish the applicability of decisions cited by the Ld. Commissioner in the impugned order. He also submitted that Rule 15(3) of the CCR, during the impugned period, provided for denial of CENVAT credit on input services taken either wrongly or in contravention of any provisions of these rules in respect of any input service and the maximum penalty is Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand only). Further, sub-rule (3) no-where specifies the acts of fraud/suppression/wilful misstatement and therefore provisions of Section 11AC of the Central Excise, Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lan. The details, which were to be provided in such an invoice, bill or challan, are also set out in the Rule. 15.6 A bare perusal of the Rule would show that the obligation, in that behalf, essentially rests on the service provider. The Rule does not advert to any consequences, in case issuance of invoice, bill or challan is delayed. The period provided appears to be directory and not mandatory. Nothing to the contrary has been articulated by the Revenue. Respectfully following the above judgment, we hold that cenvat credit cannot be disallowed in the hands of the service recipient by invoking Rule 4A (1) of the ST Rules even if the service provider issues such invoice beyond the prescribed period of 14days from the date of com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... In view of this, the term invoice mentioned in Clauses (f) and (g) of Rule 9(1) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 has to be treated including supplementary invoice, as during the period of dispute, with regard to service tax payment, the Rule 9(1) did not make any distinction between invoice and supplementary invoice . 8. We also agree with the submission that during the period in dispute there was no restriction for availing cenvat credit and such credit would be admissible even assuming that the tax that has been paid by the service provider is due to deliberate evasion on his part for the period prior to 01.04.2011. The Tribunal in Para 9 of its decision in Delphi Automotive Systems (P) Ltd., (supra), has observed that : 9. A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
