Missing Original Invoices Or Address Can’t Justify Denial of CENVAT Credit: CESTAT

The Kolkata Bench of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has allowed CENVAT credit and refund amounting to Rs. 1,45,49,227 holding that procedural irregularities such as non-submission of original invoices and minor address discrepancies cannot be grounds for denial of substantive credit. The Bench of Ashok Jindal (Judicial Member) and K. Anpazhakan (Technical Member) has held that PwC had computed refund eligibility based on export turnover ratio (99.4%). While the Department alleged miscalculation, the Bench held that mere computational discrepancies cannot be a ground to reject refund where entitlement is otherwise established. The case arose from multiple orders passed by the Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise (Appeals), Kolkata, denying CENVAT credit on various grounds including: Non-submission of original invoices; Invoices not issued strictly in the company’s name; Minor discrepancies in address; Credit allegedly availed beyond the prescribed time limit; Objections to consultancy, convention, banking and financial services; Denial of credit based on debit notes; Credit on car parking charges; and Alleged miscalculation in refund claims PwC challenged these denials before the Tribunal. One of the key issues was denial of ₹32,50,111 on the ground that original invoices were not submitted. The Tribunal noted that the appellant had produced Xerox copies of invoices along with GAR-7 challans evidencing payment of service tax by the service provider. The Bench held that when the existence of original invoices and payment of service tax is not in dispute, CENVAT credit cannot be denied merely because originals were not physically submitted. The Department objected to credit of ₹76,25,814 on the ground that certain invoices did not exclusively mention the company’s name. However, the Tribunal observed that the name and address were reflected and payment was made for the services. Accordingly, it ruled that such technical objections cannot override substantive compliance. Credit of ₹23,35,013 was denied due to minor discrepancies in the address mentioned on invoices. The Tribunal found that receipt of services and payment of service tax were undisputed. It held that minor clerical differences in address cannot form the basis for denial of credit. The Department also denied ₹3,22,104 alleging that credit was availed beyond six months from the date of invoice. The Tribunal clarified that prior to Notification No. 6/2015-CE (NT) dated March 1, 2015, there was no prescribed time limit for availing CENVAT credit. Since the credit in question pertained to the period prior to that notification, denial on limitation grounds was held unsustainable. Credit of ₹3,45,121 relating to consultancy and convention services, including leadership and induction training programmes, was also allowed. The Tribunal ruled that such services are directly connected with business operations and qualify as “input services.” The Tribunal rejected the Department’s argument that banking and financial services were unrelated to exports. It observed that such services were availed in connection with export of services and therefore qualified as input services. Credit of ₹1,12,413 was permitted. The Bench further held that debit notes containing requisite particulars under Rule 9 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 are valid documents for availing credit. Accordingly, ₹93,800 was allowed. Credit of ₹47,275 on car parking charges was also upheld, with the Tribunal noting that the facility was used for employees and visitors for business purposes. However, the appellant did not press claim of ₹1,80,158, and the same was denied. Allowing the appeals substantially, the Tribunal held that PwC Kolkata is entitled to CENVAT credit and refund aggregating to ₹1,45,49,227. Case Details Case Title: M/s Price Water House Coopers Service Delivery Centre (Kolkata) Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Kolkata Citation: JURISHOUR-19-HC-2026(Ker) Case No.: Service Tax Appeal No.75239 of 2018 Date: 20 FEBRUARY 2026 Counsel For Appellant: Snehal Agarwal, Chartered Accountant Counsel For Respondent: P.Das Click Here To Read Order Read More: Customs Dept. Can’t Reject Declared Transaction Value Solely on DRI Alert Without Complying With R. 12: CESTAT

Missing Original Invoices Or Address Can’t Justify Denial of CENVAT Credit: CESTAT

Membership Required

Latest articles

From Seizing/freezing to forfeiture: Unmasking Section 68J of NDPS Act

Karnataka High Court Quashes Dismissal of Central Tax Superintendent in Red Sanders Valuation Case

JURISHOUR | TAX LAW DAILY BULLETIN : 23 May, 2026

Whether Revisional Order Beyond S. 108 Limitation Is Valid? Delhi HC Grants Interim Relief to IndiGo in GST Refund Dispute

More like this

From Seizing/freezing to forfeiture: Unmasking Section 68J of NDPS Act

Karnataka High Court Quashes Dismissal of Central Tax Superintendent in Red Sanders Valuation Case

JURISHOUR | TAX LAW DAILY BULLETIN : 23 May, 2026

About us

Company

Categories