Rakesh Kumar ORDER
Shri Rakesh Kumar, Member (T)
1. This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against order-in-appeal No. IND-1/179/2009, dated 11-8-2009. Though a notice for hearing had been sent to the respondent well in time, and the same has been acknowledged, today when this matter was called, none representing the respondent appeared for hearing. On earlier occasions also when this matter had been fixed for hearing on 14-5-11 nobody had appeared. In view of this, so far as the respondents are concerned, the matter under Rule 21 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 is being decided ex-parte.
2. Heard Mrs. R.K. Jagdev, the learned Senior Departmental Representative, who pleaded that in this matter the Respondent have taken Cenvat credit on the basis of debit notes which is not a prescribed document, that Commissioner (Appeals)'s order permitting the Cenvat credit on the basis of debit notes is not correct and contrary to the provisions of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, that Commissioner (Appeals) has erroneously relied upon the judgment in the case of India Gateway Terminal (P) Ltd. v. C.C.E., Cochin reported in MANU/CB/0298/2008 : 2008-TIOL-634 (CESTAT-Bang.) = 2008 (11) S.T.R. 403 (Tri. - Bang.), which is only a stay order and that she in this regard relies upon the judgment of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of S.K. Foils Ltd. v. C.C.E., New Delhi-III reported in MANU/PH/0129/2009 : 2009 (239) E.L.T. 395 (P&H).
3. I have carefully considered the submissions from the Departmental Representative and perused the records.
4. The only point of dispute in this case is as to whether the Respondent could take Cenvat credit of service tax paid in respect of input services received, on the basis of documents called 'debit notes' issued by service provider. The department's objection is that debit note is not the document prescribed in Rule 9 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 for availing Cenvat credit. However, there is a clear finding in the impugned order that it is not disputed that document called 'debit note', contain the details like the name and registration number of the service provider, the nature of the service provided, service tax payable, service tax charged etc. or in other words all the details which are required to be mentioned in the invoice. Since the "debit notes" contain all the details which are required to be mentioned in the invoice and except for its name it can be treated as invoice, in my view, the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order permitting Cenvat credit on the basis of debit note is correct. As regards the judgment of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of S.K. Foils Ltd. v. C.C.E, New Delhi-III (supra) mentioned in the Revenue's appeal, that judgment is on the issue as to whether Cenvat credit can be taken on the basis of carbon copy of the challan and the ratio of this judgment is not applicable to the facts of this case. In view of this, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. The Revenue's appeal is dismissed.
(Dictated and pronounced in open court)
© Manupatra Information Solutions Pvt. Ltd.