2012 (12) TMI 740 - AT - Central Excise

Cenvat Credit denied - Non mentioning or incorrect address of the appellants on the invoices - Held that - As Services availed were for sales promotion and those were rightly availed by appellant, distantly located units of the appellant availed the benefit of cenvat credit in a distributed fashion which is otherwise guarded by Revenue by a centralised registration process. No doubt, mere submission of document shall not ipso facto grant relief to claimant but once the facts and circumstances of the case bring out the identity of the receipient of service, denial of cenvat credit may cause absurdity and when claim is otherwise permissible - Cenvat Credit allowed - in favour of assessee. Transportation of staff by bus - Held that - In absence of evidence whether Transport facility is used either for manufacture or in relation to manufacture or providing output service, thus in absence of nexus and integrity, the appellant fails to succeed - Cenvat Credit disallowed - against assessee.

Issues:
1. Disallowance of cenvat credit for invoices lacking address and service details.
2. Disallowance of cenvat credit for invoices with different addresses.
3. Disallowance of cenvat credit for transportation services.
4. Disallowance of cenvat credit for staff transportation by bus.

Analysis:
1. The appellant challenged the disallowance of cenvat credit for invoices lacking address and service details. The appellant argued that the services were for sales promotion and were rightfully availed. The appellant distributed service tax credit earned by its unit in Ghaziabad to different units at Gurgaon. The Revenue contended that without identifiable recipients and verifiable services, credit was rightly denied. The Tribunal found that the appellant succeeded on this issue as the services were used by different units of the appellant, and the denial of credit disregarded the distributed nature of credit.

2. The disallowance of cenvat credit for invoices with different addresses was also contested. The appellant reiterated similar arguments as in the first issue. The Tribunal found in favor of the appellant on this issue as well, emphasizing the distributed nature of credit used by different units of the appellant despite variations in situs.

3. The third issue involved the disallowance of cenvat credit for transportation services related to staff by bus. The appellant argued that the transportation was necessary due to the staff being stationed at a distant place from the workplace. The Revenue contended that there was no nexus for allowing cenvat credit. The Tribunal found in favor of the appellant on this issue, stating that the denial of credit may cause absurdity when the claim is otherwise permissible.

4. The fourth issue concerned the disallowance of cenvat credit for staff transportation by bus without evidence of use for manufacturing or providing output services. The Tribunal ruled against the appellant on this issue, stating that in the absence of nexus and integrity, the appellant failed to succeed. The Tribunal directed the Adjudicating Authority to recomputed the inadmissibility of cenvat credit.

In conclusion, the Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, permitting cenvat credit for issues related to invoices lacking address and service details, invoices with different addresses, and transportation services. However, cenvat credit was not allowed for staff transportation by bus due to the lack of evidence of use for manufacturing or output services. Penalties were not levied, but interest in accordance with the law was to be applied.

← Previous Next →