9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 65X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he appellant) during the period December 2006 to March 2011. 2. The Appellant is engaged in the business of manufacturing of commercial motors vehicles. The Appellant had engaged several service providers (such as M/s. Rishab Carrier, M/s. B.M. Transport, M/s. Sundar Transport etc.) to provide service of transportation of chassis from the factory premises of the Appellant to its regional sales offices (RSOs)/customers. These service providers were discharging service tax on this service under the head "Support Services for Business & Commerce". Due to revision in rate of service (escalation of price), these service providers had issued additional invoices on the Appellant to recover the differential amount of consideration including servic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... considered as invoices prescribed under Rule 4A and consequently, such invoices become inadmissible document for availing CENVAT credit, * Both Rule 4A as well as Rule 9 uses the word "shall", hence these are mandatory provisions, * There is no express provision in the CENVAT Credit Rules for availment of credit based on supplementary invoice issued by a service provider, whereas for a manufacturer there is an express provision i.e., Rule 9(1)(b), this shows the intention of the legislature to deny credit in case of supplementary invoices issued by service providers. 3. Regarding the denial of Cenvat credit on the ground that the additional invoices were issued by the service providers much after the period of 14 days of completion of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellant submits that there is no dispute that duty has not been discharged on the supplementary invoices. The SCN records that service tax has been discharged on the supplementary invoices. Further, there is also no dispute regarding the fact of receipt of input services and using it towards manufacture of dutiable goods. In light of the above, the appellant submits that CENVAT credit cannot be denied to the Appellant and hence the OIO is liable to be set aside. 4. The Ld. A.R. reiterated the findings in the impugned order. 5. We observe that the CENVAT Credit availed by the appellant on the basis of supplementary invoices were rejected by the Ld. adjudicating authority on the ground that the said invoices were not issued within 14 days fr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 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 completion of service/receipt of payment. The obligation to issue the invoice timely has been cast on the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al payment of duty as both these documents were issued under the same provisions of law. Moreover in the Service Tax Rules, 1994 there is provision only for issue of invoice by the service provider or input service distributor and, as such, the Service Tax Rules also do not mention the issue of supplementary invoices when additional service tax is required to be paid due to any reason. 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'."........................................ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y to the scheme of the Rule 9 (1). Similar view has been expressed by the tribunal in following cases........................................................................ 4.5 The Commissioner has in his order referred to rule 9 (1) (bb) inserted with effect from 01.04.2011 to justify the invocation of Rule 9 (1) (b) for confirming the demand against the appellant. The above argument is devoid of any merits. Prior to 01.04.2011 service tax was payable only after receipt of consideration by the service provider. Rule 6 (1) of the Service tax Rules, 1994 was amended to provide for payment of service tax on the accrual basis instead of on the receipt basis i.e. service tax became payable, immediately on the issuance of the invoice evidenc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
