Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Commissioner Of Central Excise, Salem vs Pricol Ltd on 12 September, 2012
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH AT CHENNAI
Appeal No.E/400/12
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.25/2012-CEX SLM dated 21.5.2012 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Salem]
For approval and signature:
Honble Shri ASHOK JINDAL, Judicial Member
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see 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
CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? :
3. Whether the Member wishes to see the fair copy of
the Order? :
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental
Authorities? :
Commissioner of Central Excise, Salem
Appellant
Versus
Pricol Ltd.
Respondent
Appearance:
Shri D.P. Naidu, SDR Shri M. Karthikeyan, Advocate For the Appellant For the Respondent CORAM:
Honble Shri Ashok Jindal, Judicial Member Date of hearing : 12.9.2012 Date of decision : 12.9.2012 Final Order No.____________ Revenue is in appeal against the impugned order wherein input service credit was allowed by the first appellate authority on the basis of invoices issued by the input service distributor.
2. The main allegation of the Revenue in this appeal is that as per Rule 4A(2) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994, the name, address and registration number of the person providing input service and the serial number and date of invoice, bill, or as the case may be, challan issued under sub-rule (1) were not mentioned in the invoices of input service distributor. Therefore, the respondents are not entitled to take credit on the strength of the invoices.
3. Heard both sides. After considering the submissions from both sides, I find that during the course of adjudication, the respondents have provided all such details as annexure to the invoice before the adjudicating authority. As the whole record of annexure is very bulky, same was not filed along with the returns filed by the respondents. But in future, the respondent has undertaken that along with invoice of input service distributor, they will file annexure showing details of registration number of input service provider etc. as required under Rule 4A (2) of Service Tax Rules, 1994.
4. In view of these observations, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. Same is upheld and the appeal filed by the Revenue is rejected but the respondents are directed that, in future, they will file all the details along with input service distributors invoice as required under Rule 4A (2) of Service Tax Rules, 1994. The appellant is at liberty to verify whether the credit taken by the respondents is correct or not.
4. The appeal is disposed off in the above terms.
(Dictated and pronounced in open court) (ASHOK JINDAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER gs 2