National Engineering Industries Limited Vs Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise (Delhi High Court)
Delhi High Court held that denial of Cenvat Credit merely because invoice contained incorrect address unjustified as invoice contained all the requisite particulars as required under proviso to Rule 9(2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.
Facts-
The appellant M/s. National Engineering Industries Ltd., Jaipur, is engaged in the manufacture of Bearing, Bearing Components, Machines and was also holding service tax registration for providing the services as Business Auxiliary Service, Consulting Engineering Service, etc.
During the course of audit and verification of Cenvat records of input services maintained by the appellant, it was observed that they have wrongly availed Cenvat credit of input service on the basis of invoices which are not prescribed documents as per Rule 4(7) and 9 of Cenvat Credit Rule, 2004. Therefore, wrongly taken Cenvat credit of Rs.12,62,017- on input services was proposed to be recovered with proportionate interest and appropriate penalties. The proposal has been confirmed. The appeal against the said order is dismissed. Being aggrieved the appellant is before this Tribunal.
Conclusion-
In the present case, the invoices with incorrect address issued by the input service providers contain all the requisite particulars as required under the proviso to Rule 9(2), therefore, Cenvat credit cannot be denied to the appellant. In fact, Rule 9(2) nowhere requires mentioning the address of service recipient. The proviso to Rule 9(2) of Credit Rules kicks in only when the conditions under Rule 4A of Service Tax Rules, 1944 read with Rule 9 of the Credit Rules, are not fulfilled entirely. Thus, denial of credit is not sustainable.
