Shriram Rayons Vs Commissioner (CESTAT Delhi)
The appellant, engaged in providing taxable services including renting of immovable property, goods transport agency service, business auxiliary service, maintenance or repair service, and scientific and technical consultancy service, challenged the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) confirming a CENVAT credit demand of ₹5,26,497.
During audit of the appellant’s records, it was observed that CENVAT credit of ₹25,25,165 had been availed in the ST-3 return for June 2017. Out of this, documentary evidence required under Rule 9(1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 was stated to be unavailable for credit amounting to ₹18,09,098. Show Cause Notice No. 8092 dated 01.10.2019 proposed reversal of the credit on the ground that it had been availed prior to payment of service tax. The proposal was confirmed through Order-in-Original No. 69/2020 dated 01.07.2020.
In appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) extended the benefit of CBEC Circular No. 207/05/2017 dated 28.09.2017 and dropped the demand of ₹12,82,601. However, the balance demand of ₹5,26,497 was upheld on the ground that copies of Challan Nos. 28067 dated 06.07.2017, 29936 dated 06.07.2017 and 4079 dated 21.07.2017, relating to the disputed CENVAT credit, were not available.
Before the Tribunal, the appellant submitted that all requisite documents had been produced before both adjudicating authorities. It was argued that the audit report contained challan numbers different from those mentioned in the show cause notice and that the challan numbers appearing in both adjudication orders had been reproduced from the show cause notice. The appellant further submitted that the relevant challans were already on record, the credit availed was proportionate and lower than the amount reflected in the challans, and that the Service Tax register containing the compilation of challans corroborated the documents produced. It was also contended that the authorities had failed to appreciate the typographical error in the challan numbers contained in the show cause notice and had not properly correlated the entries in the Service Tax register with the challans. On this basis, the appellant requested that the matter be remanded for proper appreciation of the documents and recalculation.
