9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (10) TMI 2527 - AT - Service TaxCenvat credit - disallowance - clearing and forwarding agent and transportation of goods service - service provided from two locations.The address of both the locations are appearing in the form ST-2 Certificate issued by the Jurisdictional Service Tax Authorities. - cenvat credit taken by the Raipur unit on the basis of invoices issued by the service provider in the favor of Kolkata unit - Held that - the service provider has to receive the service irrespective of the fact as to where the same have been received. Here the input service has been received by the appellant. Thus taking of cenvat credit by the appellant is in conformity with the Cenvat Statute. Further since the registration certificate issued by the Jurisdictional Service Tax Authorities clearly shows the address of both the locations of the appellant the credit cannot be denied appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues: Disallowance of cenvat credit based on invoices issued by service provider in favor of a different unit.
Analysis: 1. The appellant, engaged in taxable services like clearing and forwarding agent and transportation of goods, availed cenvat credit for service tax paid on input services. The dispute arose when the Raipur unit took credit for invoices issued to the Kolkata unit, leading to disallowance by the Service tax Department. 2. The pivotal issue revolved around Rule 3 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, which permits manufacturers or service providers to claim credit for duties and taxes paid on inputs and services. The rule mandates that services must be received by the manufacturer of final products or the provider of output service. In this case, the appellant indisputably received the input service, meeting the rule's criteria. 3. The judgment emphasized that the location where the service was received is not a determining factor according to Rule 3. Since the appellant received the service, and the registration certificate clearly listed both Raipur and Kolkata locations, the credit could not be denied. The Tribunal concluded that the appellant's action was in line with the Cenvat Statute. 4. Consequently, the impugned order disallowing the cenvat credit was deemed meritless. The Tribunal set aside the order, allowing the appeal in favor of the appellant. The decision highlighted the importance of adherence to statutory provisions and proper documentation in claiming cenvat credit, ultimately ruling in favor of the appellant.
|
