COMMISSIONER, CGST, & CENTRAL Respondent EXCISE AND CUSTOMSRAIPUR Commissioner, CGST, Central Excise & Customs, Raipur, GST Bhawan, TikraparaRaipur(CG) AND EXCISE APPEAL NO. 50351 OF 2021 [Arising out of OrderinAppeal No. RPREXCUS000APP042221 dated 20.08.2020 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise & Customs, Raipur] SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELDS LIMITED Appellant Bishrampur Area, Area Finance Manager Office of the General Manager, Near AmbedkarChowk, PostBishrampur, DistSurajpur, Chhattisgarh497226 Vs. COMMISSIONER, CGST,&CENTRAL EXCISE Respondent RAIPUR Office of the Principal Commissioner, Central Tax Central Excise and Customs, Central GST Building, Dhamtari Road, Tikrapara, Raipur492001 Appearance: Present for the Appellant : Shri Rajeev Kumar Agarwal, Advocate Present for the Respondent: Shri Rakesh Agarwal, Authorised Representative 2 E/50697/2020 & E/50351/2021 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DILIP GUPTA, PRESIDENT HON'BLE MR. P. V. SUBBA RAO, MEMBER ( TECHNICAL ) Final Order Nos. 5556555566/2024 Date of Hearing :01/12/2023 Date of Decision : 18/04/2024 P V SUBBA RAO: 1. These two appeals have been filed by South Eastern Coalfields Limited1 to assail two ordersinappeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) on the appeals filed by the appellant and the revenue assailing the same order in original. Therefore, the appeals are being disposed of together. 2. The appellant is a public sector undertaking engaged in production of coal on which it pays central excise duty. It also avails CENVAT credit on inputs and input services. A show cause notice2 dated 22.02.2018 was issued to the appellant based on intelligence and information received by the preventive wing of the Commissionerate. This SCN sought to deny CENVAT credit of Rs. 94,89,903/ taken by the appellant on the strength of 13 invoices issued by M/s S. Kumar's Associates PE &AKM (JV) for rendering mining services. The appellant awarded a contract to the aforesaid JV for providing "mining services" and the JV issued the 13 disputed invoices charging service tax from the appellant on them. The appellant availed CENVAT credit on the strength of these invoices. There is no dispute that "mining services" were 1 appellant 2 SCN 3 E/50697/2020 & E/50351/2021 chargeable to service tax and they qualified as "input service" for the coal manufactured by the appellant. 3. The department, however, noticed that the JV was constituted in the year of 201314 and has as its partners Shri Sanjay Agarwal and Smt. Priya Agrawal, each with their own bank accounts. The JV subcontracted the work to M/s S. Kumar's Associates (proprietor Priya Agrawal) who issued invoices to JV. On the basis of the invoices issued by the subcontractor, the JV issued invoices to the appellant but mentioned service tax registration of its subcontractor. It was found that the subcontractor had also not paid the service tax on various services rendered by it and proceedings have been initiated against it to recover the service tax not paid. The JV issued invoices to the appellant but mentioned the service tax registration of the subcontractor. The JV itself had obtained service tax registration only on 24.05.2017 long after the issue of the disputed invoices. 4. The case of the department is that rule 9(6) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 20043 casts the burden of proving the eligibility of the CENVAT credit on the manufacturer. The appellant, who is a manufacturer of coal in this case, had taken CENVAT credit on the strength of ineligible invoices inasmuch as wrong service tax registration number was mentioned. Of these 13 invoices,7