STA No. 18 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH STA No. 18 of 2010 Date of Decision: 16.8.2010 Commissioner of Central Excise ....Appellant. Versus M/s Federal Mogul Goetze (I) Ltd. ...Respondent. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. Bir Bhan Singla, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. M.P. Devnath, Advocate for the respondent. ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred by the revenue under Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 against order dated 20.1.2009 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (CESTAT) proposing to raise the following substantial questions of law:- “i) Whether the Hon'ble CESTAT is justified in allowing availment of Cenvat Credit on the basis of TR-6 Challans issued by a person other than the service provider, which is not a prescribed document in terms of Rule 9 (1)(e) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 for availing STA No. 18 of 2010 -2- the Cenvat Credit by service provider? ii) Whether the Hon'ble CESTAT is right in setting aside the penalty imposable under Rule 15 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004?” 2. The assessee is engaged in manufacture of Pistons and Gudgeon Pins and is also engaged in rendering cleaning services. It avails Cenvat Credit in respect of payments made to M/s Star Professional Services. The adjudicating authority did not accept the claim of Cenvat Credit and raised demand for service tax and also imposed penalty which was upheld by the appellate authority but on further appeal, the CESTAT accepted the plea of the assessee. It was held that the assessee received industrial cleaning services from M/s Star Professional Services which had paid the service tax and the assessee was entitled to credit on that basis. It was further held that though initially M/s Star Profession Services did not have the registration, in January, 2006 it took the registration which had to be taken into account. Moreover, its sister concern was already registered. The finding recorded by the Tribunal is as under:- “There is no dispute about the fact that during the period from Aug'05 to Dec'05, M/s Star Professional Services, who had issued the invoice and on the basis of which Cenvat Credit has been taken by the Appellant, neither had the service tax registration nor had paid the service tax. However, from the letter dt. 20.07.05 of M/s Star Security & Employment addressed to the Asstt. Commissioner, it is seen that in this letter they had informed the Department that STA No. 18 of 2010 -3- they are providing cleaning service through a sister concern M/s Star Professional Service under the same management and premises and that they would like to pay the service tax under the firm Star Security & Employment to save additional work load. This shows that service was being provided by M/s Star Security & Employment through M/s Star Professional Services and M/s Star Security & Employment had discharged the service tax liability under TR-6 Challan. There is no dispute about the fact that M/s Star Security and Employment at that time had service tax registration and discharged the service tax liability. TR-6 challan during the period of dispute was a valid document on the basis of which Cenvat credit could not be taken. In view of this, I am of the view that the credit has been rightly taken on the basis of TR-6 challans which are in the name of Star Security & Employment and who were providing the cleaning services through their sister concern M/s Star Professional Service. Moreover, I also find that subsequently in view of the Deptt's objection M/s Star Professional Service have also obtained to take service tax registration of Jan'06 and have discharged the service tax liability for the same period once again along with interest in March'06. In view of this also, it would not be correct to deny the STA No. 18 of 2010 -4- Cenvat credit to the appellant.” 3. Notice was issued. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant states that the counsel who has to argue the case is not available and the matter may be adjourned. There being no valid reason, we are unable to accept this submission. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the assessee. 5. It is clear from the finding recorded above that the service provider who issued invoices was the sister concern of M/s Star Security and Employment which was already registered and had discharged service tax liability under TR-6 challan. There was, thus, no ground to reject the claim for Cenvat Credit. The finding being not in any manner perverse, no substantial question of law arises. 6. The appeal is dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE August 16, 2010 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) gbs JUDGE