2013 (2) TMI 301 - AT - Service Tax

Cenvat Credit of Service Tax paid Whether the registered office is required to be registered as input service distributor when there is only one factory Invoice was received in the name of registered office but credit has been taken by factory and assessee has only one factory Held that - There is only one factory and therefore the question of distribution does not arise As decided in Modern Petrofils if the service was received by the factory, credit is admissible even if the document is in the name of registered office Decided in favour of the assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Cenvat credit denial based on invoice name discrepancy.

Analysis:
The case involved a dispute over the denial of Cenvat credit of service tax paid to a factory due to the invoice issued by the service provider being in the name of the registered office and not the factory. The Revenue contended that the registered office should have registered as an input service distributor and issued separate invoices for the factory to avail the credit. Both sides were heard in detail, and the pre-deposit requirement was waived to decide the issue finally.

The appellant argued that as they only had one factory, the question of distribution did not arise. They emphasized that the department did not dispute the receipt of services. The appellant relied on previous Tribunal decisions to support their stance that credit cannot be disallowed solely based on the invoice not containing the factory's name, especially when there is no dispute regarding the service receipt by the factory. On the contrary, the Revenue relied on other Tribunal decisions to argue that registration of an input service distributor is mandatory for credit admissibility.

After considering the submissions and records, the judge found that the decisions cited by the Revenue were not applicable to the present case. The judge noted that the dispute was not about the validity of the document issued by the distributor but rather about whether the appellant's registered office needed to be registered when they had only one factory and had taken credit based on service provider invoices. There was no indication that the factory did not receive the service. The judge concluded that the decisions cited by the appellant were directly relevant to the case, emphasizing that credit should not be denied solely because the invoice was in the name of the registered office, especially when the service was received by the factory. Consequently, the judge allowed the appeal, disposing of the stay application and the appeal itself.