Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Emmes Metals Pvt. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, Mumbai on 9 March, 2016
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI COURT NO. Appeal No. E/1015/2011 (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. SB(38)38/MV/2011 dt. 22.3.3011 passed by Commissioner (Appeals) Central Excise Mumbai Zone-I passed by the Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise ) For approval and signature: Honble Shri Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) ======================================================
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see : No
the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the
CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the : No
CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication
in any authoritative report or not?
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : Seen
of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental : Yes
authorities?
======================================================
M/s. Emmes Metals Pvt. Ltd.
:
Appellant
VS
Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai
:
Respondent
Appearance
Ms. Mansi Patil, Advocate for Appellant
Shri H.M. Dixit, Asstt. Commr. (A.R) for respondent
CORAM:
Honble Shri Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial)
Date of hearing : 9/03/2016
Date of decision: 9/03/2016
ORDER NO.
This appeal is directed against the Order-in-Appeal No. SB(38)38/MV/2011 dt. 22.3.3011 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) Central Excise, Mumbai Zone-I whereby the Ld. Commissioner rejected the appeal of the appellant.
2. The issue involved in the present case is that whether the appellant is entitled for Cenvat credit on the strength of debit notes issued by the service provider in respect of service. The Commissioner (Appeals) denied the credit on the following reason:
(i) Debit Note No. DN/05/NF dt. 1.9.2008 and DN/14/NF dt.9.1.2010, does not contain the address of the service provider;
(ii) The said Debit Notes are not in the form of Challan;
(iii) The said Debit Notes are in the form of correspondence letter;
(iv) Nowhere, it is mentioned in all the three Debit Notes as submitted by the appellant against which they availed Service tax credit, about the description and classification and the value of taxable service provided or to be provided.
On the above reason, Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) denied the Cenvat Credit, therefore the appellant is before me.
3. Ms. Mansi Patil, the Ld. Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the debit notes on which they have claimed the Cenvat Credit contains all the information as required under Rule 4A of Service Tax Rules, 1994. Therefore, the debit notes are valid documents for availing Cenvat Credit. She submits that the Ld. Commissioner has raised some shortcomings in the debit notes which is not correct for the reason that the debit notes was issued on the letterhead of the service provider, wherein the address of the service provider clearly mentioned. The debit notes also contained the details of the service value of the service and service tax amount. She further submits that this Tribunal in various judgments allowed the Cenvat Credit on the strength of debit notes. She placed reliance on the following judgments:
(i) Commissioner of Central Excise, Indore Vs. Grasim Industries Ltd. 2011 (24) S.T.R, 691 (Tri.Del.)
(ii) Jaquar & Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Delhi 2015 (39) S.T.R. 273 (Tri.Del.)
(iii) CCE, Salem Vs. M/s. Pallipalayam Spinners (P) Ltd.
2010-TIOL-1723-CESTAT-MAD
(iii) Pharmalab Process Equipments Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE Ahmedabad 2009 (242) E.L.T. 467 (Tri.-Ahmd.)
(iv) Commissioner of C. Ex. & CUS., Daman Vs. Jalaram Plastic Pack 2014 (34) S.T.R. 66 (Tri.-Ahmd.)
(v) Commissioner of C.Ex., Nashik Vs. Graphite (I) Ltd.
2007 (212) E.L.T. 54 (Tri.-Mumbai)
(vi) The Supreme Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise LTU, Mumbai 2014-TIOL-115-CESAT-MUM
(vii) Commissioner of C. Ex., Indore Vs. Gwalior Chemicals Industries Ltd.
2011 (274) E.L.T. 987 (Tri.-Del.)
(viii) M/s. Mahanagar Gas Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-II 2015-TIOL-1064-CESTAT-MUM
4. On the other hand, Shri H.M. Dixit, Ld. Assistant Commissioner (A.R.) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order.
5. I have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides. As per Rule 9 of the Cenvat Credit Rules the document prescribed for taking Cenvat Credit in respect of input services are invoice, bill or challan issued by provider of input service as per Rule 4A of the Service tax Rules. The challan shall contain certain information such as name, address and registration number of the service provider, the name and address of the recipient, description and value of service tax amount and service tax registration number. From the fact, it is clear that whatever informations required in terms of Rule 4A in the document, more or less all the informations are appearing in the debit notes, therefore the debit notes can be accepted for allowing Cenvat Credit. This Tribunal has taken a consistent view that Cenvat credit can be allowed in the debit note if it contains the informations as required under Rule 4A of Service Tax Rule, 1994. The decisions cited by the Ld. Counsel are squarely applicable in the present case. I therefore set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.
(Pronounced & Dictated in court) (Ramesh Nair) Member (Judicial) SM.
5Appeal No. E/1015/2011