Order Date – 10 January 2024

Parties: M/s Protech Galvanizer and Fabricator (P) Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise

Facts –

• The Appellant, M/s Protech Galvanizer and Fabricator (P) Ltd., during an audit by the department found to be not filed the Service Tax Return in ST-3 for the half year ending March 2010.
• The anti-evasion party of the department also visited the appellant and found that three service tax returns were not filed. Accordingly a SCN dated 7.6.2012 was issued to the appellant demanding service tax, proposing to deny CENVAT credit and disallow abatement under notification number 1/2006-ST.

Issue –

• Whether the denial of CENVAT credit and disallowance of abatement under notification number 1/2006-ST?

 Order –

• The Tribunal observed that since the towers are sold separately under a separate invoice and not during the course of providing the service, thus the value of the tower need not be included. However, as the appellant had, undisputedly, availed CENVAT credit of input services, it cannot avail the benefit of the abatement under the notification no. 1/2006-ST.
• Evidently, the services rendered in J&K were not taxable at all as the provisions of service tax did not extend to that State. The appellant had wrongly taken CENVAT credit of input services of the service tax wrongly paid by its sub-contractor. Once this amount is reversed, the requirement under Rule 6(1) of CCR is fully met and therefore, Rule 6(3) will not apply. If the amount was paid by the sub-contractor under the mistake of law or fact, it can claim refund of such an amount.
• CENVAT credit on the invoices where the address of the head office or wrong address is mentioned cannot be a ground to deny CENVAT credit. Where the service tax registration code is not mentioned in the invoices, the appellant claims to have cured this defect and therefore, CENVAT credit can be denied.
• However, where the original copies of the invoices are not available, CENVAT credit cannot be allowed on the strength of photocopies because photocopies of invoices are not valid documents under Rule 9 of CCR to allow CENVAT credit. Allowing such a credit can result in utter chaos because several copies of any invoice can be made and credit can be taken on them.
• Hence the appeal partly allowed.