Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : Krupa Trading Company Vs C.C.E. & S.T. (CESTAT Ahmedabad)
Appeal Number : Excise Appeal No. 11070 of 2015
Date of Judgement/Order : 20/03/2020
Related Assessment Year :
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored

Krupa Trading Company Vs C.C.E. & S.T. (CESTAT Ahmedabad)

The short issue involved in the present case is that whether the denial of Cenvat Credit by the Adjudicating Authority for the reason that invoices of input service bear handwritten serial number is correct or otherwise.

It is clear from the rules that the invoice should bear serial numbers, however, there is no mention in the rules that the invoice should bear Pre-printed Serial Numbers. Therefore, we are of the clear view that the invoice should be “Serially Numbered” irrespective, whether, it is hand written or Pre-printed. Therefore, the Learned Commissioners finding that the invoice should bear Pre-Printed Serial Numbers is not flowing from the above cited provision. As regard non mention of service tax registration or it is over written on the invoice the same is only procedural lapse, so long, there is no dispute regarding payment of service tax by the service provider. At the most, if the department has any doubt about the authenticity of the invoices due to the said discrepancies the department is free to carry out the verification of invoices at the service providers’ end to ensure that with reference to the invoices on which credit was availed, proper service tax was paid. We also observed that at the time of audit whereby the same objection was raised a report was sought from the service providers’ end and it was found that the service tax was paid.

CESTAT are of the view that merely for the for the said discrepancies cenvat credit cannot be denied as held in catena of judgments, some of which cited by the Learned Counsel, so long it is not under dispute that the service tax was paid by the service provider. However, since, Learned Commissioner has not given any finding on the submission of the appellant made in para (v) and (viii) of the impugned order, We are of the view that the matter needs to be re-considered only on the aspect that on the disputed invoices, the service providers have paid the service tax. CESTAT, therefore, set aside the impugned order and appeal is allowed.

FULL TEXT OF THE CESTAT JUDGEMENT

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.

Sponsored

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Sponsored
Sponsored
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
August 2024
M T W T F S S
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031