The Kolkata bench of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that CENVAT Credit cannot be denied to Tata Motors citing procedural irregularities.
The bench of R. Muralidhar (Judicial Member) and K. Anpazhakan (Technical Member) has observed that the CENVAT Credit availed by the appellant, Tata Motors on the basis of supplementary invoices were rejected by the adjudicating authority on the ground that the said invoices were not issued within 14 days from the date of completion of service or receipt of payment, whichever is earlier.
The bench held that CENVAT credit cannot be denied to the service recipient on the ground that invoice was not issued by the service provider.
The Appellant, Tata Motors is engaged in the business of manufacturing of commercial motors vehicles. The Appellant had engaged several service providers (such as M/s. Rishab Carrier, M/s. B.M. Transport, M/s. Sundar Transport etc.) to provide service of transportation of chassis from the factory premises of the Appellant to its regional sales offices (RSOs)/customers. These service providers were discharging service tax on this service under the head “Support Services for Business & Commerce”.
Due to revision in rate of service (escalation of price), these service providers had issued additional invoices on the Appellant to recover the differential amount of consideration including service tax leviable thereon. Based on such invoices, the Appellant availed CENVAT credit of the service tax paid on such differential amount of consideration.
Availment of CENVAT credit that has been disputed by the department in the instant case alleging violation of Rule 4A (1) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 read with Rule 9(1)(f) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.
The appellant contended that the finding of the adjudicating authority that supplementary invoices being issued beyond the period prescribed under Rule 4A (1) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994, cannot be considered as invoices prescribed under Rule 4A, is not sustainable.
The tribunal held that CENVAT credit cannot be denied to the Appellant on the basis of procedural irregularities, if any. Accordingly, the order denying the CENVAT credit to the appellant is set aside. Since, the credit availed by the appellant is legal and proper, the question of demanding interest and imposing penalty does not arise.
Read More: CBIC Enables Voluntary Payment Electronically on ICEGATE E-Payment Platform
Case Details
Case Title: M/s. Tata Motors Versus Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Jamshedpur Commissionerate
Case No.: Excise Appeal No. 70172 of 2013
Date: 17.12.2024
Counsel For Appellant: Shovit Betal
Counsel For Respondent: S. Dey
