9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2012 (9) TMI 111 - AT - Central ExciseInput services - CENVAT Credit - the invoices do not bear the name and the address of the service recipient - Held that - As the appellant has only one factory, wherein manufacturing of final product takes place and on removal Excise duty liability is discharged and these services are utilized for the purpose of the manufacturing activity and in relation to the business of the appellant, the mention of the address of the service receiver as head office of the appellant and not the factory premises is a rectifiable error and could be done so post availment of CENVAT Credit as decided in PAREKH PLAST (INDIA) PVT. LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, VAPI 2011 (6) TMI 595 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD - in favour of assessee.
Issues:
- Eligibility for CENVAT Credit on invoices with incorrect address of the service receiver. - Violation of Rule 9 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. - Dispute over the availed CENVAT Credit of Service Tax. - Rectifiability of the error in the invoices. - Applicability of previous Tribunal decisions on similar issues. Eligibility for CENVAT Credit on Invoices: The case revolved around the eligibility of the appellant for CENVAT Credit on invoices where the service provider had paid Service Tax but addressed the invoices to the appellant's head office instead of the factory premises where the services were utilized. The Revenue contended that this violated the prescribed rules, specifically Rule 9 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. However, it was established that the services mentioned in the invoices were received by the appellant for manufacturing activities related to their business, and the error in the address could be rectified post-availment of the credit. The Tribunal referenced previous decisions, including Parekh Plast (India) Pvt.Ltd. and Durferrit Asea Pvt.Ltd., to support the appellant's position. Violation of Rule 9 of the CENVAT Credit Rules: Both lower authorities had found the appellant in violation of Rule 9 due to the incorrect mention of the service recipient's name and address on the invoices. However, the Tribunal noted that the essential aspect was the actual receipt and utilization of services by the appellant for manufacturing activities related to their business. The error in addressing the invoices to the head office instead of the factory premises was deemed rectifiable, and the Tribunal found in favor of the appellant based on the specific circumstances of the case. Dispute Over Availed CENVAT Credit: The appellant had availed CENVAT Credit of Service Tax paid by the service provider, leading to a dispute with the Revenue. Despite the procedural violation highlighted by the Revenue, the Tribunal focused on the substantive aspect of the case, emphasizing the actual utilization of services by the appellant for manufacturing purposes. The Tribunal's decision to allow the appeal was based on the undisputed facts regarding the utilization of services and the rectifiability of the addressing error on the invoices. Rectifiability of the Error in Invoices: The Tribunal acknowledged the error in the invoices regarding the address of the service recipient but emphasized that this was a rectifiable mistake that could be addressed post-availment of the CENVAT Credit. By considering the nature of the services received, the utilization for manufacturing activities, and the overall business context, the Tribunal concluded that the rectification of the addressing issue did not invalidate the appellant's eligibility for CENVAT Credit. Applicability of Previous Tribunal Decisions: The Tribunal relied on previous decisions, specifically citing Parekh Plast (India) Pvt.Ltd. and Durferrit Asea Pvt.Ltd., to support its ruling in favor of the appellant. These decisions, along with the specific circumstances of the case, guided the Tribunal's analysis of the eligibility for CENVAT Credit and the rectifiability of the addressing error on the invoices. Ultimately, the Tribunal found the impugned order unsustainable, set it aside, and allowed the appeal in favor of the appellant based on the established facts and legal interpretations.
|
