Order Date – 16 May 2023

Parties: M/s. Usha Martin Limited Vs Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Jamshedpur

Facts –

• The Appellant, M/s. Usha Martin Limited, has received taxable services such as erection, commissioning, crushing of iron ores from M/s Maa Engineering. Subsequent to an investigation M/s Maa Engineering got itself registered and raised supplementary tax invoices dated 06.08.2008 charging service tax on earlier invoices with cross reference to the earlier invoices during the period when it was unregistered. The Appellant paid the service tax amount to the said service provider and availed Cenvat Credit.
• The Ld. Commissioner disallowed the CENVAT credit on such invoices on the ground that the said invoices have been raised by the service provider much later than 14 days from the date of the completion of service/ receipt of amount. Also observed that Rule 9(1)(f) of CCR 2004 specifies only ‘invoice’ and not ‘supplementary invoice’ on which CENVAT credit can be availed.

Issue – 

• Whether the cenvat credit can be availed on invoice issued much later than 14 days after the date of completion of service/receipt of payment?

Order –

• The Tribunal observed that the issue of admissibilty of cenvat credit to a service recipient on invoice issued much later than 14 days after the date of completion of service/receipt of payment is no longer res integra as it stands settled in favour of the Appellant by decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in Commissioner of Central Excise, Salem vs. JSW Steels Ltd., 2018 (8) G.S.T.L. 153 (Mad.).
• Thus, it was held that cenvat credit cannot be disallowed in the hands of the service recipient by invoking Rule 4A (1) of the ST Rules even if the service provider issues such invoice beyond the prescribed period of 14 days from the date of completion of service/receipt of payment. The obligation to issue the invoice timely has been cast on the service provider and not the service recipient. Moreover, the period prescribed in the said Rule is directory and not mandatory as has been held by the Hon’ble High Court. 
• Further, as during the period of dispute, with regard to service tax payment, the Rule 9(1) did not make any distinction between ‘invoice’ and ‘supplementary invoice’.”
• The demand for recovery of CENVAT Credit, interest and penalty are set aside and the appeal is allowed with consequential relief.