Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd Vs Principal Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Allahabad)
CESTAT Allahabad held that denial of cenvat credit, merely because the credit is availed on the basis of debit note, not justified since debit note covered all the requisite particulars. Accordingly, cenvat allowed on the basis of debit note.
Facts- The Appellant is a company engaged in business of providing telecom services classified under the category of “Telecommunication Services”. The Appellant has been raising invoices on its customers and discharged applicable service tax as per the provisions of the Act and Rules made therein. The Appellant has also received various inputs, input services and capital goods and used the same for providing subject output services. It has also availed credit of relevant duties/taxes paid on procurement of such inputs, input services and capital goods as per the provisions of the Cenvat Credit Rules. Availment of cenvat credit has been disputed by the department.
Conclusion- Held that the Adjudicating Authority has wrongly concluded that the vendors work as pure agent for sale of services to the customers. Hence, CENVAT credit of service tax paid on commission charged by agents has been rightly availed by the Appellant.
Held that these documents have to be treated as invoices and it would not be correct to deny the Cenvat credit to the respondent just because these documents invoice are mentioned as debit notes cum bills.
