2018 (12) TMI 236 – CESTAT ALLAHABAD – TMI – CENVAT Credit – HR Coils was being received through Rail and Railways were charging service tax for transportation of the same, which were shown in the Railway Receipt (RR) – Held that:- The facts are undisputed in the present case the appellant had admittedly availed credit on the basis of RRs and subsequently produced the STTG certificate, which was relatable to the same RRs on the basis of which credit was availed. In such a scenario, the RRs get replaced with the STTG certificate thus fulfilling the requirement of law. The bare fact that the said certificate was not available at the relevant period when the law was changed, cannot be held to be a ground for denial of the credit in the absence of any allegation to the effect that the goods were not received by Railways or Railways have not paid the service tax or the appellant have not utilized the said goods in the manufacture of their final product. Raising of such a hyper technical gr
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
e appellant is engaged in the manufacture of Steel Pipes and Tubes and was procuring HR Coils from various sources including SAIL, Rourkela. The said HR Coils was being received through Rail and Railways were charging service tax for transportation of the same, which were shown in the Railway Receipt (RR), on the basis of which the appellant was claiming the credit. 2. However, w.e.f. 27.08.2014, the Cenvat Credit Rules were amended and Clause (a) was introduced after Clause (f) of sub Rule (1) of Rule 9 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 to the effect that along with photo copy of Railway Receipts, the Railways would issue a service tax certificate for transportation of goods by Rail known as STTG certificate, which would be the basis for availment of the credit. However, during the period from July, 2014 to March, 2015 the appellant continued to avail the credit on the basis of Railway Receipts i.e., RRs and subsequently an audit objection was raised as a result of which the appellant appr
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
the period involved in the appeal is from July, 2014 to March, 2015. It was also observed that since the STTG certificate was not issued by the Railways in the name of the appellant, the same would not form eligible document for the purpose of availment of credit. Hence demand to the tune of ₹ 10.58 lakhs approximately were confirmed along with confirmation of interest and imposition of penalty of identical amount. The said order was upheld by Commissioner (Appeals). Hence the present appeal. 4. The facts are undisputed in the present case the appellant had admittedly availed credit on the basis of RRs and subsequently produced the STTG certificate, which was relatable to the same RRs on the basis of which credit was availed. In such a scenario, the RRs get replaced with the STTG certificate thus fulfilling the requirement of law. The bare fact that the said certificate was not available at the relevant period when the law was changed, cannot be held to be a ground for denial of
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
e issuance of more than one STTG certificates to the customer (consignor) for a particular month. The consignor shall transfer the consignee-wise STTG certificate in original to the consignee concerned. The consignee may avail the CENVAT credit on the strength of this certificate. (vi) Where a consolidated STTG Certificate has been issued in terms of clause (iii), no STTG Certificate consignee-wise in terms of clause (v) shall be issued and vice-versa. As is clear from reading of the above paragraphs the consignor can obtain the STTG certificate and can transfer the same to the consignee who would become eligible to avail the credit. In the present case M/s SAIL has given a certificate to the effect that they had not availed the credit in question. Further the Revenue s objection that the circular was issued in 2016 and as such would not be applicable for the period prior to that can also not be appreciated inasmuch as the circular is nothing but clarification of the law by the Board.
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =