2013 (7) TMI 794 - AT - Central Excise

Head office not registered as Input Service Distributor Invoices issued by Service Provider in the name of Head Office registered in Delhi Branch office is providing Telecommunication Service in the state of Rajasthan Held that - There is no dispute about the eligibility of the Service covered under the invoices for Cenvat Credit. There is also no dispute that these services had been used by the Appellant for providing telecommunication service in the state of Rajasthan Relying upon the ratio of judgment of the Tribunal in case of Durferrit Asea Pvt. Ltd. 2010 (4) TMI 259 - CESTAT, BANGALORE which would be applicable to the facts of the instant case and the Cenvat Credit cannot be denied just because the invoices are in the name of the head office Decided in favor of Assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Availing Cenvat Credit based on invoices in the name of Head Office without Input Service Distribution registration.
2. Validity of Cenvat Credit denial, interest, and penalty imposition by the Department.
3. Applicability of the Tribunal judgment in a similar case.
4. Dispute resolution regarding the eligibility of services and Cenvat Credit.

Analysis:

1. The appellant, a Telecommunication Service provider in Rajasthan, availed Cenvat Credit based on invoices in the name of their Head Office in Delhi, despite the Head Office not being registered as an Input Service Distributor. The Department contended that since the Head Office was not registered for service distribution, the appellant in Jaipur could not claim Cenvat Credit based on those invoices.

2. Following a Show Cause Notice, the Assistant Commissioner confirmed the service tax demand, interest, and penalty on the appellant. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision, leading to the current appeal challenging the denial of Cenvat Credit and the imposition of penalties.

3. The appellant argued that all services covered by the invoices were used in Rajasthan, where they were registered for service tax, and cited a Tribunal judgment in a similar case to support their claim. The Department defended its decision by highlighting the absence of the service provider's registration number on one of the documents.

4. After considering both sides' arguments and reviewing the records, the judge found that the services covered by the invoices were eligible for Cenvat Credit and had been used in Rajasthan. Citing the Tribunal's precedent, the judge ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the impugned order, and allowing the appeal based on the applicability of the Tribunal's judgment to the case at hand.