M/s. Chemplast Sanmar Ltd. Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Trichy

2018 (4) TMI 1223 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI – CENVAT credit – duty paying documents – documents on which credits were taken where addressed to a non-registered address – ISD invoices, where there are no evidences that such services were actually services used for taxable manufacturing or output service – Held that: – these services were in fact used for setting up of Semmankuppam facility can very well being established by supporting evidence like work order, invoices raised by the service provider linked to such work order, payment of tax by the appellant on such invoices and linking all these documents to the effect to satisfactorily establish that these input services were in fact used for setting up of Semmankuppam facility – The fact that these services were in fact used for setting up of Semmankuppam facility and the services were indeed availed by the appellant can be verified with supporting document – matter on remand.

Credit can be availed by the service recipient if the

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

al allowed by way of remand. – E/Misc./41966 & 41967/2017 and E/103 & 104/2011 – Final Order Nos. 40262-40263/2018 – Dated:- 31-1-2018 – Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) And Shri B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical) Ms. Radhika Chandrasekaran, Advocate for the Appellant Shri A. Cletus, Addl. Commissioner (AC) for the Respondent Per B. Ravichandran, These two appeals are against common impugned order dated 25.11.2010 of Commissioner, LTU, Chennai. 2. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods. They were in the process of setting up of manufacturing facility in Semmankuppam, Cuddalore. In this connection, they have availed various services by different service providers. The substantial dispute in the present appeals relate to eligibility of the appellant to avail such credits on these various input services. Revenue upon scrutiny of above various documents which formed basis of such credit, entertained a view that these credits were not available to the app

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

with the Department nor recognized by them. The submission of the appellant is that the Semmankuppam manufacturing facility was being set up at that time. For managing the operation of setting up, they have opened an office nearby in Radha Nagar office which managed such operations. Hence on this technicality, credits cannot be disallowed. Further, on the same reasoning, the Head Office also issued documents like ISD invoices addressed to Radha Nagar office. The services were in fact used while in setting up of the Semmankuppam factory cannot be denied as asserted by the appellant. In fact, the denial of credit is not on this ground. The Revenue inferred that these credits cannot be allowed as these were not addressed to Semmankuppam as the activities were claimed to be relating to setting up of the said factory. Going by the assertion of the appellant, we note the fact that these services were in fact used for setting up of Semmankuppam facility can very well being established by sup

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

with reference to Semmankuppam factory. Certain credit was denied on the ground that the documents were not eligible documents. These were debit notes, work orders containing all the relevant particulars as claimed by the appellant. Credit can be availed by the service recipient if the documents issued contain all the essential requirement of Rule 9 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. In fact, the said rule provides for certain discretion to the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner which can also be exercised to such satisfaction of the conditions. 6. Credits in certain cases were also denied on the ground that the appellant did not pay the full consideration for the services received. The ld. counsel submitted that for certain service providers they have retained some portion of the invoice amount as security, however, they have paid the full tax shown in the invoice. This requires verification of original documents with supporting evidence. Upon satisfactory verification of payment of fu

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

Leave a Reply