JUDGMENT K.S. Jhaveri, J. - By way of this appeal, the appellant has assailed the judgment and order of the Tribunal whereby Tribunal has allowed the appeal of the assessee. 2. This court while admitting the appeal on 18-4-2016 framed following substantial question of law :- "Whether Central Cenvat Credit can be allowed on the basis of a document which does not carry required details as are provided under Rule 9(1) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004." 3. The facts of the case are that M/s. Bharti Hexacom Ltd. K-21, Sunny House, Malviya Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur (Raj.) (hereinafter referred to as "the respondent" also) holder of Service Tax Registration No.AAACH1766PST001 are engaged in providing taxable services under the category of Telecommunication Services. 3.1 During the course of audit of the records of the respondent, it was noticed that the respondent has availed and utilized Cenvat credit amounting to Rs. 30,83,728/-(including Education Cess) on the strength of Debit Notes issued by M/s. GAIL (I) Ltd., Jaipur on 19-7-2006, 16-10-2006 and 15-2-2007. Since debit note is not a specified document for taking Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, the Cenvat credit so availed by the respondent and subsequently utilized for payment of taxes which appeared to be irregular under provisions of law. Such irregular availment and utilization of Cenvat credit on the strength of improper document (Debit notes), the respondent appeared to have contravened the provisions of Rule 9(1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and Section 68 of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Rule 6 of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 and therefore, they appeared liable for penalty under Rule 15(4) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Sections 76 & 78 of the Act. 4. Counsel for the appellant contended that the tribunal has committed serious error in accepting the document of debit note which is not permissible under Rule 9 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 which reads as under :- "Rule 9. 4. Counsel for the appellant contended that the tribunal has committed serious error in accepting the document of debit note which is not permissible under Rule 9 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 which reads as under :- "Rule 9. Documents and accounts.- (1) The CENVAT credit shall be taken by the manufacturer or the provider of output service or input service distributor, as the case may be, on the basis of any of the following documents, namely (a) an invoice issued by- (i) a manufacturer for clearance of - (I) inputs or capital goods from his factory or depot or from the premises of the consignment agent of the said manufacturer or from any other premises from where the goods are sold by or on behalf of the said manufacturer; (II) inputs or capital goods as such; (ii) an importer; (iii) an importer from his depot or from the Premises of the consignment agent of the said importer if the said depot or the premises, as the e may be, is registered in terms of the visions of Central Excise Rules, 2002; (iv) a first stage dealer or a second stage dealer, the case may be, in terms of the provisions of Central Excise Rules, 2002; or (b) a supplementary invoice, issued by a manufacturer or importer of inputs or capital goods in terms of the provisions of Central Excise Rules, 2002 from his factory or depot or from the premises of the consignment agent of the said manufacturer or importer or from any other premises from where the goods are sold by, or on behalf of, the said manufacturer or importer, in case additional amount of excise duties or additional duty leviable under section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, has been paid, except where the additional amount of duty became recoverable from the manufacturer or importer of inputs or capital goods on account of any non-levy or short-levy by reason of fraud, collusion or any wilful misstatement or suppression of facts or contravention of any provisions of the Excise Act, or of the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962) or the rules made there under with intent to evade payment of duty. Explanation. Explanation. - For removal of doubts, it is clarified that supplementary invoice shall also include challan or any other similar document evidencing payment of additional amount of additional duty leviable under section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act; or (c) a bill of entry; or (d) a certificate issued by an appraiser of customs in respect of goods imported through a Foreign Post Office; or (e) a challan evidencing payment of service tax by the person liable to pay service tax under subclauses (iii), (iv), (v) and (vii) of clause (d) of sub-rule (1) of rule (2) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994; or (f) an invoice, a bill or challan issued by a provider of input service on or after the 10th day of, September, 2004; or (g) an invoice, bill or challan issued by an input service distributor under rule 4A of the Service Tax Rules, 1994." 4.1 He further contended in view of the decision of Principal Seat at Jodhpur in Panwar Trading Corporation vs. State of Raj. reported in 2015 (1) WLN 14 (Raj.) wherein it has been held as under : 27. The availment of ITC is creature of Statute. The concession of ITC is granted by the State Government so that the beneficiaries of the concession are not required to pay the tax or duty which they are otherwise liable to pay under Rajasthan VAT Act. In extending the concession, it is open to the Legislature to impose conditions. Section 18 is one such condition imposed making it mandatory for the registered dealer to claim ITC within 90 days under subsection (2), from the date of issuance of invoice, and no ITC will be allowed on certain purchases under sub-section (3). The entitlement to claim Input Tax Credit is created by Rajasthan VAT Act and the terms on which Input Tax Credit can be claimed must be strictly observed. 28. The expression "in the manner as may be prescribed" is used in Section 18. The usage of the expression "in the manner as may be prescribed" occurring, is referable only to the manner prescribed in Section 18. The modalities and the time frame in Section 18, as regards availment or enjoyment of Input Tax Credit, is a pre-condition and not merely procedural. 29. The usage of the expression "in the manner as may be prescribed" occurring, is referable only to the manner prescribed in Section 18. The modalities and the time frame in Section 18, as regards availment or enjoyment of Input Tax Credit, is a pre-condition and not merely procedural. 29. A person claiming benefit of exemption must show that he satisfies the eligibility criteria and for that purpose the provision must be strictly construed. If exemption is available on complying with certain conditions, the conditions have to be mandatorily complied with. In Commissioner of Central Excise vs. Hari Chand Gopal, : (2011) 1 SCC 236 , the Hon''ble Supreme Court held as under :- "29. The law is well settled that a person who claims exemption or concession has to establish that he is entitled to that exemption or concession. A provision providing for an exemption, concession or exception, as the case may be, has to be construed strictly with certain exceptions depending upon the Settings on which the provision has been Placed in the statute and the object and purpose to be achieved. If exemption is available on complying with certain conditions, the conditions have to be complied with. The mandatory requirements of those conditions must be obeyed or fulfilled exactly, though at times, some latitude can be shown, if there is a failure to comply with some requirements which are directory in nature, the noncompliance of which would not affect the essence or substance of the notification granting exemption." The same principle was reiterated in Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Amritsar vs. Malwa Industries Ltd., : (2009) 12 SCC 735 . 30. In India Agencies (Regd.), Bangalore vs. Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Bangalore, : (2005) 2 SCC 129 , the Supreme Court emphasised that in case of Inter-State sales, the provision for furnishing original Form-C to claim concessional rate of tax under Section 8(1) of Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 is mandatory and that dealer has to strictly follow the procedure. It was held that to claim concessional rate of tax, provisions have to be strictly construed and that unless there is strict compliance with the provisions of the Statute, the registered dealer is not entitled to the concessional rate of tax. 32. It was held that to claim concessional rate of tax, provisions have to be strictly construed and that unless there is strict compliance with the provisions of the Statute, the registered dealer is not entitled to the concessional rate of tax. 32. The benefit of credit under the Act is in the nature of a concession given which could be availed only in the manner and in the circumstances mentioned in Section 18. 4.2 He also relied upon the decision of Supreme Court in Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi vs. Hari Chand Shri Gopal and Ors. reported in (2011) 1 SCC 236 = 2010 (260) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.), wherein Supreme Court held as under :- "29. The law is well settled that a person who claims exemption or concession has to stablish that he is entitled to that exemption r concession. A provision providing for an exemption, concession or exception, as the case may be, has to be construed strictly with certain exceptions depending upon the settings on which the provision has been placed in the Statute and the object and purpose to be achieved. If exemption is available on complying with certain conditions, the conditions have to be complied with. The mandatory requirements of those conditions must be obeyed or fulfilled exactly, though at times, some latitude can be shown, if there is a failure to comply with some requirements which are directory in nature, the non-compliance of which would not affect the essence or substance of the notification granting exemption." 4.3 He also relied upon the decision of Punjab & Haryana High Court in S.K. Foils Ltd. vs. Central Excise reported in 2009 SCC Online P & H 809 wherein it has been held as under :- 8. A manufacturer of final products shall submit within five days after the close of each month to the Superintendent of Central Excise, a monthly return indicating the particulars of inputs received during the month and the amount of credit taken. The manufacturer shall also submit original duty paying documents and extracts of Part I and Part II of Form RG 23A maintained along with the monthly return to the Superintendent of Central Excise, who shall after verifying their genuineness, deface such documents and return the same to the manufacturer. The manufacturer shall also submit original duty paying documents and extracts of Part I and Part II of Form RG 23A maintained along with the monthly return to the Superintendent of Central Excise, who shall after verifying their genuineness, deface such documents and return the same to the manufacturer. A perusal of the above provisions of the Rules shows that in order to claim Modvat credit the original copy of the invoice is required to be produced. There is no provision for granting Modvat credit on the basis of a carbon copy. If we presume that carbon copy in a case like the one in hand could be treated as original then the finding of fact by the appellate authority or Tribunal have to be on the record. In the present case the finding of fact is against the dealer that TISCO does not issue invoice on a carbon copy so as to be treated as original for the purpose of Rule 57G of the Rules. The contention of the counsel for the assessee that carbon copy has been properly verified and defaced does not impress us as in the present case adjudication has to be only on the question of law. We find no merit in the contention raised by the learned Counsel for the assessee. Moreover, laying down a blanket principle permitting Modvat credit on carbon copy may result into setting up of false claims. On such a principle the possibility of availing Modvat credit by many persons against one transaction would not be ruled out which will be highly damaging to the revenue. 4.4 He also relied upon the decision of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Executive Engineer (Civil), MPEB vs. Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise, Ujjan reported in 2007 SCC Online MP 729 : 2008 (224) E.L.T. 219 wherein it has been held as under :- "At the outset, we would prefer to deal with the second contention raised by the learned Counsel for the respondents for dismissal of petition on the ground of adequate alternative remedy : To appreciate this contention, it is necessary to notice various stages through which this petition passed before it was listed for final hearing. The writ petition was presented on 17-5-2001. On 30-7-2001 show cause notices against admission were issued to respondents. On 28-9-2001, the petition was admitted for final hearing in presence of learned Counsel for the respondents. The writ petition was presented on 17-5-2001. On 30-7-2001 show cause notices against admission were issued to respondents. On 28-9-2001, the petition was admitted for final hearing in presence of learned Counsel for the respondents. The bar of alternative remedy is self imposed bar because remedy available under Article 226/227 of the Constitution being in general is a discretionary relief. After having entertained and admitting the writ petition for final hearing, it will not be proper at this stage to throw it out on the ground of alternative remedy. In this view of the matter, it is difficult to accept the contention of the learned Counsel for the respondents to dismiss the writ petition on the ground of alternative remedy at this distant point of time. 8. Now coming to the merits of the case, it may be observed that MODVAT is basically a duty collecting procedure which provides relief to the manufacturer on the duty element borne by him in respect of the inputs used by him. The relief is given duty under the MODAVT Scheme on the actual payment of duty on the input. On such payment, the assessee gets a right to claim adjustment/set off against the duty on the final product. Under MODVAT, excisable finished products made out of duty paid inputs are given relief of excise duty to the extent of duty paid on inputs. The burden to prove the bona fide of defense is on the assessee and in this case the assessee has failed to prove his bona fides. In the case in hand, authorities, on appreciation of material, have found that petitioner failed to produce prescribed and relevant documents required as per law and the petitioner wrongly availed of MODVAT credit of of Rs. 7,8,830/- on the strength of invalid documents. The breach on the part of petitioner was not a trivial or technical breach as contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. From the orders passed by the Revenue Authorities, it is clear that relevant and necessary documents were not finished by the petitioner in support of claim for MODVAT Credit as was required under the law at that point of time. Any subsequent change in Rules would not come to the rescue of the petitioner, because, ordinarily, changes in the procedural law are prospective unless clear intention is discernable to give retrospective effect. Any subsequent change in Rules would not come to the rescue of the petitioner, because, ordinarily, changes in the procedural law are prospective unless clear intention is discernable to give retrospective effect. After careful reading of the said notification, we find no indication either in the notification or sub-Rule (11) inserted below sub-Rule (10) of Rule 57G to give retrospective operation. That apart, the initial order was passed by the Adjudicatory Authority on 30.9.1997 whereas notification as aforesaid was issued on 9-Feb-1999 or thereabout and for this reason also, it is of no avail to the petitioner." 4.5 He further relied upon the decision of Madras High Court in USA Agencies vs. The Commercial Tax, Officer in 2013 (5) CTC 63 wherein it has been held as under :- 34. Thus from out of all taxable transactions stipulated under sub-section (2) of Section 3, certain transactions are carved out to give benefit of Input Tax Credit. Thus, having examined the manner and entitlement of ITC as per Section 19 of the Act, it can hardly be said that the right to claim ITC is a vested right or an indefeasible right, but it is a benefit conferred under the Act in certain contingencies and subject to conditions, to be extended in the manner prescribed. The Input Tax Credit given under sub-section (3) of Section 3 is really a benefit given in respect of certain taxable transactions for which tax paid under sub-section (2) of Section 3 to the extent of tax paid on purchase of goods inside the State. Therefore, it cannot be contended that subsection (3) of Section 3 is an integral part of sub-section (2) of Section 3 conferring absolute and indefeasible right on the registered dealer. Input Tax Credit provided under sub-section (3) of Section 3 is really a benefit or indulgence. While so, it is open to the State Legislature to provide for conditions and restrictions while extending the concession. Primary obligation of the State is to tax. The concession by way of Input Tax Credit are to be construed very strictly. 38. Provision for availing concession is to be strictly construed and followed :- Input tax credit, which is in the nature of concession or indulgence, could be availed only in the manner prescribed under Section 19. Primary obligation of the State is to tax. The concession by way of Input Tax Credit are to be construed very strictly. 38. Provision for availing concession is to be strictly construed and followed :- Input tax credit, which is in the nature of concession or indulgence, could be availed only in the manner prescribed under Section 19. Law is well settled that the person, who claims exemption or concessional rate, must obey and fulfill the mandatory requirements exactly. Unless there is strict compliance with the provisions of the statute, the registered dealer is not entitled to claim Input tax credit". Apart from Section 19 of TN VAT Act, there is no independent right to claim Input tax credit. When Section 19(11) stipulates time frame for availment of Input tax credit, the registered dealer must strictly follow the mandatory requirements of the provision. 39. The availment of Input Tax Credit is creature of Statute. The concession of Input Tax Credit is granted by the State Government so that the beneficiaries of the concession are not required to pay the tax or duty which they are otherwise liable to pay under TN VAT Act. While so extending the concession, it is open to the Legislature to impose conditions. Section 19(11) is one such condition imposed making it mandatory for the registered dealer to claim Input Tax Credit before the end of the financial year or before ninety days from the date of purchase, whichever is later. The entitlement to claim Input Tax Credit is created by TN VAT Act and the terms on which Input Tax Credit can be claimed must be strictly observed. 48. We are unable to accept the said contention, since the scheme of Section 19 is not in the nature of a machinery provision, rather it is a substantive provision stipulating the contingencies and the types of transaction done by a registered dealer which would qualify for availing input tax credit. 60. In India Agencies case : (2005) 2 SCC 129 , the Hon''ble Supreme Court held as follows :- 26. We are of the opinion that a liberal construction was not justified having regard to the scheme of the Act and the Rules in this regard and if there was any hardship, it was for the legislature to take appropriate action to make suitable provisions in that regard. We are of the opinion that a liberal construction was not justified having regard to the scheme of the Act and the Rules in this regard and if there was any hardship, it was for the legislature to take appropriate action to make suitable provisions in that regard. It is also settled rule of interpretation that where the statute is penal in character, it must be strictly construed and followed. 27. We also realise that the section and the rules as they stand may conceivably cause hardship to an honest dealer. He may have lost the declaration forms by pure accident and yet he will be penalised for something for which he is not responsible but it is for the legislature or for the rule-making authority to intervene to soften the rigour of the provisions and it is not for this Court to do so where the provisions are clear, categoric and unambiguous. It is for the Legislature to take action to make suitable amendment. It is not for this Court to do so when the provisions are clear and unambiguous. 72. Applying the principles of interpretation, the test to ascertain whether the word shall used in Section 19(11) has to be examined upon the TN VAT Act and we should not go by the phraseology of the provision, but should consider the nature, its design and consequence which would follow from it. Section 19(11) specifically uses the word "shall" as regards compliance with the time-frame for claiming Input Tax Credit accumulated on purchases either before or end of the financial year or before ninety days after the purchase whichever is later. In our considered view in order to verify the entries and to prevent any tax avoidance or evasion, time frame is stipulated in Section 19(11) of TN VAT Act to claim Input Tax Credit. The use of the word "shall" is ordinarily indicative of the mandatory nature of the provision. 4.6 He further contended that in view of the observations made by the Tribunal, the Tribunal has committed an error in allowing the appeal. 5. The use of the word "shall" is ordinarily indicative of the mandatory nature of the provision. 4.6 He further contended that in view of the observations made by the Tribunal, the Tribunal has committed an error in allowing the appeal. 5. Counsel for the respondent has taken us to the judgment of Appellate Authority who while considering the argument observed as under :- "The appellant in the grounds of appeal has argued that the details of service tax registration and amount of service tax are mentioned on the documents titled as debit note; that it is only a difference of nomenclature of the document, but defacto it is invoice for all practical purposes; that further amount towards value of services and towards payment of service tax has been charged by GAIL to the appellant by issue of these debit notes which is the purpose of issue of invoice/bill also, therefore it is highly technical to disallow cenvat credit on document which bears all the particulars required to be mentioned in the invoice/bill for the sole reason that it is not titled as invoice/bill but titled as debit note; that GAIL (I) limited has taken centralized service tax registration in Vadodara based on the centralized accounting and invoice/debit note can be issued by any branch office of GAIL (I) limited; that debit note are bearing and serial number, service tax registration number, name and address of the service provider and service recipient, description of service, value of taxable service and service tax charged thereon; that the appellant submitted in this respect that the issuance of separate invoices is not relevant to the issue because first for recovering any particular amount only one document i.e. either a debit note or an invoice is issued and, secondly the impugned credit is taken on the basis of the subject debit notes for the services received by them, the payment for which has duly been made by them; that the present matter of the appellant is squarely covered by the ratio of the decisions cited in the appeal memo. It is clear that for availment Cenvat credit in respect of inputs, capital goods and input services the appellant or anybody else desire to avail Cenvat Credit has to receive the goods under certain documents which are prescribed under the above Rule. It is clear that for availment Cenvat credit in respect of inputs, capital goods and input services the appellant or anybody else desire to avail Cenvat Credit has to receive the goods under certain documents which are prescribed under the above Rule. The debit note has not been prescribed duty paying document for availment of cenvat credit. It appears that to avoid improper availment of Cenvat credit, the legislature has specifically prescribed certain documents for availment of Cenvat credit and if the intention of the legislature was to allow other documents like debit note, which include the required information therein as specified in Rule 9(2) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, then the Rule 9 would have been drafted in that way. The appellant is big concern and they cannot claim that what is the proper document for availment of Cenvat credit. The appellant has also not produced any confirmation from M/s. GAIL (I) Ltd. about issuing of debit note by them in all cases for recovery of any services provided by them as well as not issuing any other documents apart from debit note so issued by them. Be that as it may, debit note in reference cannot be attributed as proper duty paying document for availment of Cenvat credit. I thus hold that the adjudicating authority has rightly denied the cenvat credit on the basis of debit notes so received by the appellant. I also observe that the above view find support from the decision of Hon''ble CESTAT in the case of M/s Godrej Consumer Product Ltd. vs. CCE, Indore reported in 2010 (20) STR 609 (Tri-Del) wherein it was held by Hon''ble CESTAT that debit note is not a prescribed duty paying document in terms of Rule 9 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 for availment of Cenvat credit." 5.1 He contended that only because debit note was not referred in Rule 9 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 while interpreting law, the Appellate Authority has given contrary finding to the tribunal judgment. 5.2 He emphasised on the following observations of the tribunal which reads as under :- "The short issue involved in this appeal is whether the appellant is entitled to take cenvat credit on the strength of debit note which indicates all the details as per Rule 9(1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 to avail Cenvat Credit or not." 6. Counsel for the respondent Mr. Counsel for the respondent Mr. Jhanwar has relied upon the following decisions :- 6.2 In Shree Cement Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, 2013 (29) S.T.R. 77 (CESTAT - Delhi), it has been held as under :- 6.3 At the interest of Revenue, if the Adjudicating Authority so chooses he may send copies of debit note relied by Assessee to the concerned jurisdictional officer for verifying whether the service tax realised by those debit notes have gone in to the treasury. In the event of any adverse report obtained law shall operate on its own volition. Appeal is allowed with aforesaid observations and reasoning. 6.4 In Emmes Metals Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Appeal No. E/1015/2011, decided on 9-3-2016, it has been held as under 5. I have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides. As per Rule 9 of the Cenvat Credit Rules the documents prescribed for taking Cenvat Credit in respect of input services are invoice, bill or challan issued by provider of input service as per Rule 4A of the Service Tax Rules. The challan shall contain certain information such as name, address and registration number of the service provider, the name and address of the recipient, description and value of service tax amount and service tax registration number. From the fact, it is clear that whatever information required in terms of Rule 4A in the document, more or less all the information are required are appearing in the debit notes, therefore the debit notes can be accepted for allowing Cenvat Credit. 6. This Tribunal has taken a consistent view that Cenvat credit can be allowed in the debit note if it contains the information as required under Rule 4A of Service Tax Rules, 1994. The decisions cited by the Ld. Counsel are squarely applicable in the present case. I, therefore, set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal. 6.5 In Pharmalab Process Equipments Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commr. of C. Ex. - 2009 (16) S.T.R. 94 (CESTAT - Ahmedabad), it has been held as under :- 2. Shri Vipul Khandhar, learned Chartered Accountant, on behalf of the appellants submitted that the credit of service tax paid by them on the business auxiliary services (Commission Agent) received by them has been disallowed on the ground that the same was taken on the basis of debit notes. Shri Vipul Khandhar, learned Chartered Accountant, on behalf of the appellants submitted that the credit of service tax paid by them on the business auxiliary services (Commission Agent) received by them has been disallowed on the ground that the same was taken on the basis of debit notes. He submits that there was an omission on the part of the service provider in not issuing a proper invoice but issuing debit notes for the services provided. He submits that the service was provided by Pharmalab (I) Pvt. Ltd. He drew my attention to the fact that even though the documents have been called as debit note, they contain all the details which are required as per proviso to Rule 9(2) of CENVAT Credit Rules and therefore denial of the same by the Original Adjudicating Authority and the Appellate Authority is not correct. Learned DR, submits that credit has been taken on the basis of debit notes and it is not a prescribed document. 4. Commissioner (Appeals) also has taken the same view. However, from the copies of debit notes submitted during the hearing I find that the debit notes issued by the service provider contained the details of service tax payable, description of the taxable service (sales commission), value of the taxable service, registration No. of the service provider, name and address of the service provider. These are the details which are required as per Rule 9(2) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The observations of the Assistant Commissioner are contrary to the facts noticed by me on the basis of documents submitted before me. Since it is not clear as to whether the same documents which were produced before me were produced before the Assistant Commissioner or not, the matter has to go back to the Assistant Commissioner who shall go through the documents, verify whether service has been received and whether all the particulars as required under the Rules are available in the debit notes and adjudicate the matter afresh. If documents contain details required under Rule 98 (sic) [9(2)] of CENVAT Credit Rules, benefit of Service Tax Credit may be extended. Needless to say the appellants shall be given an opportunity to present their case and also the Assistant Commissioner shall be free to get any verification if necessary done. If documents contain details required under Rule 98 (sic) [9(2)] of CENVAT Credit Rules, benefit of Service Tax Credit may be extended. Needless to say the appellants shall be given an opportunity to present their case and also the Assistant Commissioner shall be free to get any verification if necessary done. 6.6 In Commissioner of Central Excise, Indore vs. Grasim Industries Ltd. 2011 (24) S.T.R. 691 (CESTAT - Delhi), it has been held as under :- 4. The only point of dispute in this case is as to whether the Respondent could take Cenvat credit of service tax paid in respect of input services received, on the basis of documents called ''debit notes'' issued by service provider. The department''s objection is that debit note is not the document prescribed in Rule 9 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 for availing Cenvat credit. However, there is a clear finding in the impugned order that it is not disputed that document called ''debit note'', contain the details like the name and registration number of the service provider, the nature of the service provided, service tax payable, service tax charged etc. or in other words all the details which are required to be mentioned in the invoice. Since the "debit notes" contain all the details which are required to be mentioned in the invoice and except for its name it can be treated as invoice, in my view, the Commissioner (Appeals)''s order permitting Cenvat credit on the basis of debit note is correct. As regards the judgment of Hon''ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of S.K. Foils Ltd. vs. C.C.E, New Delhi-III (supra) mentioned in the Revenue''s appeal, that judgment is on the issue as to whether Cenvat credit can be taken on the basis of carbon copy of the challan and the ratio of this judgment is not applicable to the facts of this case. In view of this, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. The Revenue''s appeal is dismissed. 6.7 In Commissioner, Central Excise and Service Tax vs. Nav Bharat Metallic Oxide Industries P. Ltd., (CESTAT - Ahmedabad) it has been held as under :- 4.1 In view of the above case law and other case laws, relied upon by the Appellant, a Debit note could also belong to the category of Invoice where all the prescribed details are available. As per World Book Dictionary also, an invoice means a list of goods sent to a purchaser often showing such other information as price, amounts etc. Similarly, a Bill means a statement of money owned for work done or things supplied. Accordingly, a debit note having all the prescribed details could be an invoice or bill. It is not brought out by Revenue as to what are the standard elements of an Invoice or Bill or Challan which are lacking in the debit notes issued to Respondent''s Head Office. On the basis of above observations and the reported case laws, Revenue''s appeal does not survive. 6.8 In Jaquar and Co. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Service Tax 2015 (39) S.T.R. 273 (CESTAT - Delhi), it has been held as under :- 7. Coming to the Cenvat credit of Rs. 30,16,390/- based on the debit notes issued by the various persons, there is no dispute that these persons are dealers. On going through some of these debit notes placed on record, it is seen that all the debit notes mention the Service Tax registration number of the persons issuing the debit notes, which had been issued in respect of the Business Auxiliary Service. These debit notes also mention the full address of the service providers and have been issued to the appellant company. The debit notes mentioned the description of the service as "project commission" on various projects and the amount of the commission and also the Service Tax paid on the same. According to the Id. Counsel for the appellant, the "project commission" is the commission charged for procuring the sales orders for supply to various projects and as such, the commission is in respect of the Business Auxiliary Service provided by these dealers. The plea of the Id. Joint CDR is that the description of the service and its classification has not been mentioned and therefore, these debit notes cannot be treated as invoices issued by the service provider for the purpose of Cenvat credit. It is also pleaded that the amounts mentioned are merely dealers'' margin and not the commission for procuring sales orders. After considering the rival submissions, on this point, I am of the view that on perusal of the sample debit notes, it is clear that these debit notes are in respect of the Business Auxiliary Service for procuring orders provided by the dealers. After considering the rival submissions, on this point, I am of the view that on perusal of the sample debit notes, it is clear that these debit notes are in respect of the Business Auxiliary Service for procuring orders provided by the dealers. The nature of the service is also clear from the Service Tax registration number, which is clearly for Business Auxiliary Service. In any case, when the appellant were paying the Service Tax and filing S.T.-3 Returns, such points could always have been clarified by the assessing officers. Once the Service Tax paid by the service provider has been accepted by the jurisdictional Central Excise authorities, as Service Tax on "Business Auxiliary" service, the Central Excise authority at the end of recipient of the service could not seek review of that assessment of the service at the time of considering its Cenvat credit. In view of this, I hold that the debit notes mention all the particulars, which are required to be mentioned in the invoices and the Cenvat credit has been correctly taken by the appellant. The Tribunal in a series of judgments has held that when the debit notes issued by the service provider under Rule 4A of the Service Tax Rules, 1994, mention all the information''s required to be mentioned in an invoice, the Cenvat credit on the basis of such debit notes has to be allowed by treating the same as invoices. In view of this, denial of Cenvat credit of Rs. 30,16,390/- is also not sustainable. 6.9 In Mahanagar Gas Limited vs. Commissioner of Central Excise (CESTAT - Mumbai), it has been held as under :- 5. On careful perusal of debit note, I observed that all the particulars as required under Rule 9(2) of Cenvat Credit Rules are undisputedly appearing on the debit note. Therefore the debit note is at par with the documents prescribed under Rule 9 (1) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. On going through various judgments relied upon by the Ld. Counsel for the appellant, I find that the ratio of those judgments are squarely applicable in the present case. Therefore the debit note is at par with the documents prescribed under Rule 9 (1) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. On going through various judgments relied upon by the Ld. Counsel for the appellant, I find that the ratio of those judgments are squarely applicable in the present case. There is no dispute raised by the department that the service were received and same was accounted for in the books of account of the appellant, therefore, I am of the view that debit note containing all the details as required under the rule 9(2) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 is valid documents for the purpose of taking cenvat credit. As per my above discussion, I am of the view that the appellant is entitled for the Cenvat credit on the debit note, therefore impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed. 6.10 In VSL Steels Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise - 2013 (295) E.L.T. 725 (CESTAT - Bangalore), it has been held as under :- 1. This application is for waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery. The lower authorities have denied Cenvat credit amounting to Rs. 12,31,828/- to the appellant for the period from 3-5-2007 to 29- 2-2008 and have also imposed equal amount of penalty on them. The only ground on which the credit was denied is that the appellant availed the benefit on the strength of "debit notes" issued by M/s. Container Corporation of India and similar private service providers. After examining the records and considering the submissions made by both sides, we have found prima facie case for the appellant inasmuch as the so-called ''debit notes'' (copies available on record) disclose all the essential particulars required of a statutory invoice. Prima facie, one should not look at the title of the document but should rather see the contents thereof to determine its status. An order of this Tribunal cited by the Id. Counsel viz. CCE, Salem vs. Pallipalayam Spinners (P) Ltd. [2010-TiOl-1723-CESTAT-MAD] appears to support the present appellant. In that case, debit notes, inter alia, were accepted as proper documents for the purpose of availment of Cenvat credit in the facts of that case. In the above view of the matter, we grant waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery in respect of the amounts adjudged against the appellant. In that case, debit notes, inter alia, were accepted as proper documents for the purpose of availment of Cenvat credit in the facts of that case. In the above view of the matter, we grant waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery in respect of the amounts adjudged against the appellant. 6.11 In Karur KCP Packaging Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, 2009 (16) S.T.R. 609 (CESTAT - Chennai) , it has been held as under :- 3. On a careful consideration of the facts of the case and the submissions by both sides I find that the appellants have made out a prima facie case against the impugned demand and penalty on the strength of the case law submitted as well as the certificate issued by M/s. Vidyavikas Educaids Pvt. Ltd. I find that credit of service tax paid under C&F Agents service was incorrectly denied on the ground that the Board Circular came to be issued subsequent to the material period. The documents called debit notes had apparently contained all the particulars required to be provided in an invoice and were adequate to avail CENVAT credit. In the circumstances it is ordered that there shall be waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery of the adjudged dues pending decision in the appeal. 7. He also relied upon the decision of Gujarat High Court in CCE and C. vs. Eupec- Welspun Pipe Coatings India Ltd. reported in 2010 (260) E.L.T. 3 81 (Guj.) wherein it has been held as under :- 2. Heard, Ms. Amee Yajnik, learned Standing Counsel, appearing for the Revenue and perused the order of the CESTAT (2009 (235) E.L.T. 347 (Tri.-Ahmd.).). The CESTAT, in its order, has clearly observed after referring to Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules (sic) that, credit shall not be denied on the ground that the document does not contain all the particulars required to be contained under these Rules if the document gives details of payment of duty or Service Tax, Description of the Goods, Assessable Value, Name and Address of the factory of the receiver. 2.1 The Tribunal has further observed that according to proviso to Rule 9(2), the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner can allow CENVAT Credit, if he is satisfied that the duty has been paid and goods have been actually used. 2.1 The Tribunal has further observed that according to proviso to Rule 9(2), the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner can allow CENVAT Credit, if he is satisfied that the duty has been paid and goods have been actually used. The Tribunal found, as a matter of fact, that all these details are available except the name and the address of the factory on the bill of entry. The only omission was that instead of endorsing the bill of entry itself in name of the Assessee, the importer has issued separate certificate/declaration. The Tribunal, therefore, took the view that the same has to be considered as part of the bill of entry and both of them cannot be segregated and seen in isolation as done by the Department. The Tribunal, on the basis of these materials on record, took the view that the credit has to be allowed in view of the provisions of Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules (sic). 3. Since, the Tribunal has recorded finding of facts and it is also in consonance with Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules (sic), we are of the view that no substantial question of law arises out of the order of the CESTAT. We, therefore, summarily dismiss this Tax Appeal. 7.1 He also relied upon the decision of Delhi High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Moonlight Builders and Developers - (2008) 307ITR 197 (Delhi) wherein it has been held as under :- 8. Precisely the same thing has happened insofar as these appeals are concerned. The revenue has accepted the primary orders passed by the Tribunal on 14-7-2003 and 14-6-2004 but has chosen to challenge the orders passed by the Tribunal in the present appeals which merely follow these primary orders. There is no reason given by the revenue for this pick and choose attitude or this attitude of accepting favorable orders in respect of one assessed but not accepting the same favorable order in respect of another assessed, without there being any distinction between their cases. Consequently, in view of the arbitrary manner of proceeding in the matter, we do not think that it will be proper or in the interest of justice to allow the revenue to seek to recover tax from one assessed while declining to recover tax from another assessed on identical facts. Consequently, in view of the arbitrary manner of proceeding in the matter, we do not think that it will be proper or in the interest of justice to allow the revenue to seek to recover tax from one assessed while declining to recover tax from another assessed on identical facts. 7.2 He also relied upon the decision of Supreme Court in Formica India Division vs. Collector of Central Excise and Ors. - 1995 (77) E.L.T. 511 (S.C.) wherein it has been held as under :- 2. The High Court, however, took note of the fact that no contention had been raised before the Tribunal that the appellants should be permitted to meet the requirements of Rule 56A of the Central Excise Rules and, therefore, they cannot be permitted to avail of that benefit in a Writ Petition brought under Article 226 of the Constitution. That indeed was a technical view to take because if the appellants were entitled to the benefit of the Notification No. 71/71-C.E., dated 29th May, 1971, to deny that benefit on the technical ground of non-compliance with Rule 56A would tantamount to permitting recovery of double duty on the intermediary product. The circumstances in which the appellants did not pay the duty on the intermediary product before putting the same to captive consumption for producing that stage, the appellants contested the correctness of the classification and had, therefore, not paid the duty on the intermediary product. When it was found that they were liable to pay duty on the intermediary product and had not paid the same, but had paid the duty on the end product, they could not ordinarily have complied with the requirements of Rule 56A. Once the Tribunal took the view that they were liable to pay duty on the intermediary product and they would have been entitled to the benefit of the notification had they met with the requirement of Rule 56A, the proper course was to permit them to do so rather than denying to them the benefit on the technical ground that the point of time when they could have done so had elapsed and they could not be permitted to comply with Rule 56A after that stage had passed. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the appellants should be permitted to avail of the benefit of the notification by complying at this stage with Rule 56A to the satisfaction of the Department. 7.3 He also relied upon the two judgments which have been referred by the Tribunal in Supreme Industries Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise LTU, Mumbai reported in 2014-TIOL-115-CESTAT-Mum, it has been held as under :- "6. In the case of Grasim Industries Ltd. (supra), this Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to take credit on the basis of ''debit notes'' as the same is having all the particulars required to be mentioned in the invoices. Therefore, following the ratio of the decision in the case of Grasim Industries Ltd. (supra), I allow the credit taken by the appellant and set aside the impugned order. Appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any." 7.4 In M/s. Aditya Polysack Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Jaipur-I - 2015-TIOL-996-CESTAT-DEL, it has been held as under :- "5. In the case of Godrej Consumer Products Ltd. (supra) the view taken up by this Tribunal was in the absence of the appellant. Therefore, said decision is not applicable. Further, I find that in the case of Elecon Information Technology Ltd. (supra) it has been held that if in the debit note all the details have been mentioned to avail the Cenvat Credit then assessee is entitled to take Cenvat Credit. When there is no dispute that Service Tax has been paid. Therefore, issue is no more resentegra. 6. In these circumstances, I hold that appellant has correctly taken Cenvat Credit. Consequently, impugned order is set aside. Appeal is allowed with consequential relief if any." 8. We have heard counsel for the parties. 9. Taking into consideration the fact that even first authority while considering the matter has admitted the debit note which was produced though holding it to be in contravention under Rule 9 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 but in view of the different decisions of the tribunal and in view of the observations made by the Gujarat High Court and Delhi High Court, the view taken by the tribunal is required to be accepted and the same is accepted. 10. In that view of the matter, the issue is answered in favour of the assessee and against the department. 11. 10. In that view of the matter, the issue is answered in favour of the assessee and against the department. 11. The appeal stands dismissed. 12. Needless to say that the first judgment given by the tribunal was ex parte and subsequently for the relevant assessment year, the view taken earlier was changed by the Bench.