Case Law Details
Usha Martin Limited Vs Commissioner of Central Excise (CESTAT Kolkata)
CESTAT Kolkata held that denial of CENVAT Credit to service receiver alleging that invoice is issued by service provider beyond prescribed period is unjustified as obligation of timely issuance of invoice is cast on the service provider and not service receiver.
Facts- The service provider, M/s Maa Engineering, was not registered with the Department during the period 2005-06 to 2007-08. It provided certain taxable services such as erection, commissioning, crushing of iron ores to the Appellant. Invoices were raised on the appellant without charging any service tax. Subsequently, an investigation was carried on at the premises of the service provider pursuant to which, it got itself registered and raised supplementary tax invoices dated 06.08.2008 charging service tax on earlier invoices with cross reference to the earlier invoices during the period when it was The Appellant paid the service tax amount to the said service provider and availed Cenvat Credit.
Commissioner disallowed the CENVAT credit on such invoices on the ground that the said invoices have been raised by the service provider much later than 14days from the date of the completion of service/ receipt of amount in violation of Rule 4A(1) of the Service Tax Rules 1994 (STR 1994) and Rule 9(2) of the CENVAT Credit Rules 2004 (CCR, 2004). He also observed that Rule 9(1)(f) of CCR 2004 specifies only ‘invoice’ and not ‘supplementary invoice’ on which CENVAT credit can be availed.
Accordingly, being aggrieved, the present appeal is filed.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
