Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S Gabriel India Limited vs Cce & St, Indore on 18 October, 2016
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL West Block No. 2, R.K. Puram, New Delhi 110 066. Principal Bench, New Delhi COURT NO. I DATE OF HEARING : 07/10/2016. DATE OF DECISION : 18/10/2016. Excise Appeal No. 637 of 2012 [Arising out of the Order-in-Original No. 52/COMMR/CEX/IND/ 2011 dated 15/12/2011 passed by The Commissioner (Appeals), Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax, Indore.] M/s Gabriel India Limited Appellant Versus CCE & ST, Indore Respondent
Appearance Shri B.L. Narsimhan, Advocate for the appellant.
Shri R.K. Manjhi, Authorized Representative (DR) for the Respondent.
CORAM : Honble Shri Justice Dr. Satish Chandra, President Honble Shri B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical) Final Order No. 54174/2016 Dated : 18/10/2016 Per. B. Ravichandran :-
The appeal is against order dated 19/12/2011 of Commissioner of Central Excise, Indore. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of shock absorbers liable to Central Excise duty. They are availing Cenvat credit of duty paid on various inputs and input services. Proceedings were initiated against them to demand and recover credit taken on various input services on the basis of debit notes issued by their head office/branch office which acted as input service distributor. The allegation is that the debit notes were not prescribed documents and did not contain the details as required in order to avail Cenvat credit. The Original Authority adjudicated the case and held that the appellants are not eligible for credit of Rs. 50,40,216/-. He imposed equivalent amount of penalty on them.
2. We have heard both the sides and perused the appeal records including written submissions. The learned Counsel for the appellant contested the original order on both the grounds : namely, that the debit note is a valid document for availing credit and it contained all the required details for due availment of credit. We have perused the impugned order and also various sample debit notes submitted by the appellants. The debit notes contained details with address of the person who issued the same as well as the recipient. The credit distributed were specified with period. The debit note is with enclosures which contained elaborate details regarding invoice date, the name of the provider of service, nature of service, amount of service tax paid on such invoice etc. All the particulars relevant and required in terms of Rule 9 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 are available in the said debit notes and its enclosures. We find in Shriram Pistons & Rings Ltd. vs. CCE, Ghaziabad reported in 2012 (281) E.L.T. 90 (Tri. Del.), the Tribunal examined similar set of facts and held that credit cannot be denied if the inputs have been received by a manufacturer under the invoices of the service providers issued in the name of head office, the head office had taken Cenvat credit and thereafter passed on the same to its manufacturing units, only on the ground that the said credits were passed on by letters and not by the document bearing the name invoices or challans. The only requirement is that the documents or letters issued by the head office should contain all the details which are required to be mentioned in the invoices/challans issued by the input service distributor. In the present case, we find there is no dispute regarding the eligibility of various input services for the credit. The dispute is more on the documentation followed by the Input Service Distributor. Debit note and its enclosures contained all the required details for a valid distribution of eligible credits. In this connection, reference can be made to decided cases :-
(i) M/s Emmes Metals Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, Mumbai reported in 2016 TIOL 999 CESTAT MUM ;
(ii) M/s Mahanagar Gas Limited vs. CCE, Mumbai II reported in 2015 TIOL 1064 CESTAT MUM ;
(iii) The Supreme Industries Ltd. vs. CCE LTU, Mumbai reported in 2014 TIOL 115 CESTAT MUM and
(iv) CCE, Indore vs. M/s Gwalior Chemicals Industries Ltd. reported in 2011 TIOL 1635 CESTAT DEL.
3. On perusal of the impugned order, we find the denial of credit to the appellant is not based on any substantial legal provisions. The documentations followed by the Input Service Distributor in the present case contains the required/relevant particulars to enable the appellant to avail the credits. We find no justification for denial of credit on the grounds taken by the lower Authorities. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.
(Order pronounced in open court on 18/10/2016.) (Justice Dr. Satish Chandra) President (B. Ravichandran) Member (Technical) PK ??
??
??
??
4EX/637 of 2012