Dismissed

Commissioner of Customs Excie and Service Tax-Pune-Iii v. Hoerbiger India Pvt. Ltd.

CESTAT20 Jan 2026E/85832/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an appeal challenging a dropped CENVAT demand, the Tribunal held that minor procedural irregularities in mentioning the address on a GAR-7 challan do not negate credit availing when the service was actually received, utilized by the manufacturing unit, and tax was paid.

What did the court decide?

The appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.

Commissioner of Customs Excie and Service Tax-Pune-Iii vs… — Customs and Excise | CESTAT (2026)

¶1

CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI

¶2

REGIONAL BENCH - COURT NO. I

¶3

Excise Appeal No. 85832 of 2014

¶4

(Arising out of Order-in-Original No. PUN/EXCUS/003/COM/024/13-14 dated 20.11.2013 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Pune-III Commissionerate.)

¶5

Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise, … Appellants

¶6

and Service Tax, Pune-III ICE House, 41-A, Sasson Road, Opp. Wadia College, Pune-411 001.

¶7

Versus

¶8

M/s. Hoerbiger India Pvt. Ltd. …. Respondent

¶9

GAT no. 303/13, 312-313, Village Kondhapuri, Tal. Shirur, Pune-412 209.

¶10

APPEARANCE:

¶11

Shri Xavier P M Mascarenhas, Authorized Representative for the Appellant Shri Chirag Shetty, Advocate for the Respondent

¶12

CORAM:

¶13

HON’BLE MR. S.K. MOHANTY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) HON’BLE MR. M.M. PARTHIBAN, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

¶14

FINAL ORDER NO. A/85209/2026

¶15

Date of Hearing: 20.01.2026 Date of Decision: 20.01.2026

¶16

Per: S.K. MOHANTY

¶17

Heard both sides and perused the case records.

¶18

The respondent in this case, had availed CENVAT Credit on the basis of GAR-7 Challan as the recipient of the taxable services, under reverse charge mechanism. The said challan contained the reference of the head office and since the address of the respondent was not appearing in the said challan, department had objected to the fact of availment of CENVAT Credit on the ground that such challan cannot be considered as prescribed document for the purpose of such credit. The Show Cause Notice (SCN) dated 09.05.2013 issued in this regard, was adjudicated by the learned Commissioner of Central Excise, Service Tax, Pune-III vide the impugned order dated 20.11.2013, in

¶19

¶20

E/85832/2014

¶21

dropping the proposals made in the SCN with regard to the demand of Rs,87,33,565/- and Rs.15,35,461/-. However, the impugned order has confirmed the CENVAT demand of Rs.2,96,023/-. Insofar as the proceedings as per the SCN were dropped by the adjudicating authority, Revenue has preferred this appeal before the Tribunal against such dropping of the CENVAT demand. Revenue has assailed the impugned order on the ground that taking of CENVAT Credit on the basis of the document i.e. GAR-7 Challan is not proper inasmuch as such document is not a prescribed document, as per the statute for availment of the CENVAT benefit.

¶22

It is an admitted fact on record that the taxable service as per the said challan was received by the manufacturing unit and utilized for the intended purpose; the service tax amount as per the challan has been credited to the Central Government account. Since, the essential condition of tax paid nature of the service and its receipt and usage in the manufacturing unit have been fulfilled, simply by mentioning the name and address of the head office in such circumstances in such challan, would be considered as procedural in nature. We also find that subsequent to the issuance of the GAR-7 Challan, the head office of the appellants got itself registered with the service tax department as the ISD. Considering the fact that the services were received by the manufacturing unit, duly suffered with the service tax, the learned adjudicating authority has rightly dropped the demand as proposed for recovery in the SCN.

¶23

Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order, passed by the adjudicating authority. Accordingly, the appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed.

¶24

(Order dictated and pronounced in open court)

¶25

(S.K. Mohanty) Member (Judicial)

¶26

(M.M. Parthiban) Member (Technical)

¶27

Commissioner of Customs Excie and Service Tax-Pune-Iii v. Hoerbiger India Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Commissioner of Customs Excie and Service Tax-Pune-Iii v. Hoerbiger India Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Novatech Projects India Pvt. Ltd. vs Kolkata-iii

Ms S M L Isuzu Ltd. vs Jalandhar

Arjun Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. vs Jammu & Kashmir

Arjun Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. vs Chandigarh-Ii

Bodal Chemicals Ltd. vs Ahmedabad-i

Bodal Chemicals Ltd. vs Ahmedabad-i

Jindal Steel And Power Ltd. vs Rourkela

Hindustan Unilever Ltd. vs Dibrugarh