The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), observed that the Purposeful omission of Service Tax registration number makes invoices as inadmissible document.
The legality of the order passed by the Commissioner in partly allowing Cenvat Credit as admissible and partly denying a portion of credits as inadmissible is assailed in the two appeals by the Assessee as well as the Department to the extent of the order affecting them.
The assessee-Appellant M/s. Navkar Corporation Ltd. has been providing Cargo Handling Services, Storage and Warehousing Services. On the basis of intelligence gathered, premises of the Assessee was searched, several documents were seized under Panchnama including invoices on which Cenvat Credit were taken, statements of the witness were recorded.
The counsel for the appellant, Bharat Raichandani, submitted that the primary ground taken by the Commissioner to refuse Cenvat Credit was that in some of the invoices Service Tax registration numbers were not available and some of the invoices were missing but the above referred judgments would clearly reveal that the same was technical infraction and the some omission was not done by the Assessee-Appellant but by the service provider who issued the invoices, which could have been cross verified by the Department from the service provider regarding actual payment of Service Tax so as to extent the admissibility of those credits to the Assessee-Appellant.
On the contrary the Authorised Representative for the Respondent, Prabhakar Sharma, in response to the argument led in the appeal filed by the Assessee-Appellant, submitted that no irregularity can be noticeable in the order passed by the Commissioner in refusing Cenvat Credit of Rs.84,51,419/- taken through improper/incomplete documents and Cenvat Credit of Rs.32,14,579/- on failure of the Appellant to produce duty paying documents for the reason that Rule 9 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 has elaborately made provision concerning availability as well as examination of documents.
A Two-Member Bench comprising Dr. Suvendu Kumar Pati, Member (Judicial) and Anil G. Shakkarwar, Member (Technical) observed that “The genuineness of the invoices are doubtful since placing the Service Tax registration number is conspicuous by its absence that would put the invoices in the category of inadmissible document. We are, therefore, not inclined to interfere in the findings of the Commissioner on this issue.”
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
