Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S Indian Oil Corporation Ltd vs C.C.E. & S.T.-Vadodara-I on 22 December, 2017
CUSTOMS EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL West Zonal Bench 2nd Floor, Bahumali Building, Nr Girdharnagar Bridge, Asarwa Ahmedabad 380 004 Appeal No. : E/11884/2017 Arising out of OIA-VAD-EXCUS-001-APP-016-2017-18 dt 05/04/2017 passed by the Commissioner ( Appeals ), Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax-VADODARA-I M/s Indian Oil Corporation Ltd - Appellant(s) Vs C.C.E. & S.T.-Vadodara-i - Respondent(s)
Represented by For Appellant(s) : Shri Willingdon Christian, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Shri S N Gohil, Authorised Representative CORAM :
Dr D.M. Misra, Hon'ble Member (Judicial) Date of Hearing / Decision : 22/12/2017 ORDER No. A/13873 / 2017 Per : Dr D.M. Misra, Heard both sides.
2. By the impugned order, the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed denial of CENVAT credit of Rs. 73,018/- for the period June 2015 to March 2016 availed by the appellants on input service namely, inspection charges, on the ground that document on which the appellant availed credit are not valid documents as per Rule 9(1) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.
3. The Ld. Shri Willingdon Christian, Advocate for the appellants submits that the appellants had availed credit of the service tax paid on input service, namely, third Party Inspection agency charges, who conducted verification of the, inputs viz. fastener, stud with nuts, supplied by the input supplier for its use in the Gujarat Refinery project. The said third party inspection was carried out at their request and on the basis of the said inspection/test certificate; the material was supplied by the input suppliers and was accepted by the appellant. He submits that Third Party Inspection agency issued invoices in the name of input suppliers indicating the service tax paid, enclosing therewith Release Note, which contains purchase order number of the appellant and the place of inspection, etc. He submits that they had availed credit on the invoices issued by the said input suppliers and there is no dispute about the fact that they have availed service of the Third Party Agency in relation to supply of the said inputs/parts namely, fastener, studs with nuts. Ld. Advocate further submitted that the documents issued by the service provider, the input supplier and the purchase order issued by them are easily co-relatable.
4. Ld. A.R. for the Revenue does not dispute the fact that appellant could able to correlate between the invoices issued by Third Party Inspection Agency to that of input suppliers supported by inspection release note, and all the documents indicate the purchase order of the appellant, where inspection by the third party agency/service provider is requested by the appellant. The Ld. A.R. for the Respondent-Revenue has raised an objection that since inspection charge is included in the value of the goods, therefore, the supplier of inputs must have taken credit on the same.
5. In his rejoinder, the ld. Advocate Shri Willingdon Christian for the appellant has categorically submits that since inspection was carried out at their behest, therefore, the supplier of input has not taken any credit.
6. I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by both sides. There is no dispute about the fact that service tax paid on inspection charges is eligible to CENVAT credit. Also, I find that Third Party Inspection Agency raised invoices in the name of input suppliers mentioning the place of testing and the relevant purchase order of IOCL in the invoices as well as relevant inspection reports. Therefore, correlating the documents namely, purchase order, invoices issued by Third Party Agency inspection report and the invoices of the input suppliers, it is clear that the inspection was carried out at the behest of the appellants and used in or in relation to supply of spare parts/inputs. Therefore, the credit is definitely admissible to the appellants. In the result, the impugned order is set aside and the Appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any, as per law.
(Dictated and pronounced in the open Court) (D.M. Misra) Member (Judicial) swami 3