Relief for JSW Steels: CESTAT rules Bank Certificates as Valid Documents for Cenvat Credit Claim [Read Order]
The CESTAT ruled that bank certificates are valid documents for claiming Cenvat credit and set aside the department’s demand and penalty
![Relief for JSW Steels: CESTAT rules Bank Certificates as Valid Documents for Cenvat Credit Claim [Read Order]](https://www.taxscan.in/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Relief-for-JSW-Steels-JSW-Steels-CESTAT-CESTAT-Rules-Bank-Certificates-as-Valid-Documents-Bank-Certificates-Valid-Documents-for-Cenvat-Credit-Claim-Cenvat-Credit-Claim-taxscan.jpg "Relief for JSW Steels: CESTAT rules Bank Certificates as Valid Documents for Cenvat Credit Claim [Read Order]")
The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) ruled that bank certificates issued by Indian Bank are valid documents for claiming Cenvat credit. This relief to JSW Steels Ltd. and the department’s demand for recovery and penalty were set aside. JSW Steels Ltd., the appellant, is engaged in the manufacture of iron and steel products. The...
The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) ruled that bank certificates issued by Indian Bank are valid documents for claiming Cenvat credit. This relief to JSW Steels Ltd. and the department’s demand for recovery and penalty were set aside.
JSW Steels Ltd., the appellant, is engaged in the manufacture of iron and steel products. The company availed Cenvat credit of Rs. 51,67,473 for the period from February to August 2009, based on two sets of documents: Rs. 4,442 on Xerox copies of bills from Bharti Airtel and Rs. 51,65,423 on Certificates issued by Indian Bank.
During an audit, the department found these documents invalid under Rule 9 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, and issued a Show Cause Notice on December 24, 2013, seeking to recover the credit along with interest and an equal penalty under Rule 15(2) of CCR read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Order-in-Original No. 04/2015 upheld the demand and penalty. The appellant approached the CESTAT.
Become PF & ESIC Pro: Basic to Advance Course - Enroll Today
The appellant’s counsel argued that Indian Bank had centralized service tax registration, and its certificates contained all necessary details under Rule 4A of the Service Tax Rules and Rule 9(1)(f) of CCR, making them valid for Cenvat credit.
The appellant’s counsel relied on various tribunal decisions, including Cords Cable Industries Ltd. v. CCE, Jaipur, and Soham Motors Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Aurangabad, which established that Cenvat credit cannot be denied solely because original invoices were not submitted.
The department’s counsel argued that the certificates issued by Indian Bank branches were not prescribed documents under Rule 4A of the Service Tax Rules and, therefore, could not be used to claim Cenvat credit.
Read More: GST Cases: Rajasthan GST Department issues Guidelines for Virtual Hearings [Read Circular]
A two-member bench comprising Vasa Seshagiri Rao (Technical Member) and Ajayan T.V. (Judicial Member) ruled that bank certificates/statements are valid documents under Rule 4A of the Service Tax Rules and that Cenvat credit cannot be denied merely for non-production of original invoices.
The tribunal found that the department was already aware of these transactions through the company’s returns, making the invocation of the extended period of limitation unjustified.
To Read the full text of the Order CLICK HERE
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
