Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S.Allen Career Institute vs Cce & St, Jaipur-I on 1 June, 2016
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI, PRINCIPAL BENCH NEW DELHI
Date of Hearing:26.05.2016
Date of Decision:01.06.2916
Appeal No.ST/53408/2015-ST(SM)
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.209(SLM)ST/JPR/2015 dated 3.6.2015 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Jaipur]
For Approval and Signature:
Honble Shri B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical)
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 Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?
4
Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
M/s.Allen Career Institute Appellants
Vs.
CCE & ST, Jaipur-I Respondent
Appearance:
Rep. by Shri Sanjiv Agarwal, C.A. for the appellant.
Rep. by Ms.Kenu Verma Kumar, AR for the respondent.
Coram: Honble Shri B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical) Final Order No.51923/2016 Dated:01.06.2016 Per B. Ravichandran:
The appellants are engaged in providing taxable services of commercial training and coaching. They are registered with the Department and are availing credit on inputs used in relation to providing taxable service. The issue involved in the present appeal is eligibility of the appellants for cenvat credit on paper. The Original Authority on conclusion of the proceedings denied the credit on the ground that the invoices on the basis of which credit has been taken by the appellant were issued by M/s.Sudarshan Enterprises, Kota and M/s.Coral Casual Wears Pvt. Ltd., Kota, neither of them were manufacturer of paper or first stage or second stage dealer/agent of the goods on behalf of the manufacturer. The invoices were found to be not eligible documents for availing credit. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the original order. Aggrieved by this, the appellant filed this appeal.
2. Ld. Consultant appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the duty paid paper was manufactured by Tamil Nadu News Print and Paper Ltd. and were supplied to the appellants through these two sellers on a back to back basis. He further submitted that the invoices issued by the manufacturer, apart from showing two sellers as consignees, also carried the name of the appellants. Further, VAT invoices issued by these two sellers of dutiable items clearly mentioned the linking invoice no. of the manufacturer. He also submitted that there is no dispute about their usage of duty paid papers in the course of rendering taxable service. The present denial of credit is only on the technical ground that the inputs were not received on the basis of manufacturers invoices. He relied on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Craft Corner Paper Mills Ltd. Vs. CCE, Daman (2013) 29 Taxmann.com 71 (Ahmedabad CESTAT). The Tribunal held that once the services were received and utilized in relation to manufacture of final products, the credit cannot be denied on the ground that the invoice does not contain the manufacturers name. The Honble Gujarat High Court in the case of Darshan Industries Vs. Union of India 2014 (307) ELT 36 (Gujarat) held that the credit can be taken on the basis of endorsed invoices issued by the intermediary purchaser on the goods on which the manufacturer has paid the duty.
3. Ld. AR submitted that in terms of Rule 9 of Cenvat Credit Rules, the documents on the basis of which the credit can be taken, has been clearly mentioned. The documents in the present case are not valid for the purpose of availing credit. As such, the decision of the lower authorities is legal and proper.
4. Heard both the sides and examined the appeal records.
5. The admitted facts of the case are that the appellants provided taxable services and in connection with such services, they have used inputs (paper). The inputs were supplied by the local re-sellers. It is noticed that the invoice issued by the manufacturer indicated the consignees name as that of re-sellers. However, in the bottom of invoice, the appellants name was indicated. The VAT invoices issued by the re-sellers of paper indicated the product as TNPL Cream Wove paper. With reference to the original invoice number of the manufacturer in the invoices issued by ABC Paper Ltd (manufacturer), there is an endorsement for delivery to the appellants premises. In the VAT invoices issued by the re-sellers cross reference has been made to the manufacturers invoice. It is the appellants claim that the manufacturer consigned the goods to the appellant through the documents issued in the name of distributors with cross link to their name. I find that the sample verification of the copies of the invoices issued by the manufacturer and the re-sellers indicates the clear link between the duty paid goods supplied by the manufacturer and received by the appellant. Considering the above factual position, I find no justification to deny the credit to the appellant. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed.
[Order pronounced in open court on 1.6.2016 ] ( B. Ravichandran ) Member (Technical) Ckp.
1