2013 (9) TMI 211 - AT - Service Tax

Cenvat Credit - Duty paying documents - Service Tax credit availed on the documents/invoices which were in the name of the head office - Tribunal in the case of Manipal Advertising Services 2009 (10) TMI 434 - CESTAT, BANGALORE is in favour of the assessee - Credit availed by the appellant on the services rendered on the invoices which were raised by the service provider in the name of head office were actually received in the factory premises - service provider raised the invoices and charged appropriate Service Tax Held that - Most the invoices which are in the name of head office could be endorsed in the appellant s name - Services are undisputedly used for the purpose of the manufacturing activity of the appellant - Appellant is eligible to avail CENVAT Credit on these items as has been held by the Tribunal in the case of Ultratech Cement Ltd. 2010 (10) TMI 13 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT Decided in favor of Assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Availment of CENVAT Credit on service tax invoices in the name of the appellant's Head Office.
2. Availment of CENVAT Credit on services not directly or indirectly used in manufacturing.
3. Disagreement with the first appellate authority's decision.
4. Eligibility of the appellant to avail CENVAT Credit on various services used in manufacturing.

Analysis:

1. The appellant availed CENVAT Credit of Service Tax on invoices in the name of their Head Office, which was considered as an Input Service Distributor. The Adjudicating Authority demanded the CENVAT Credit along with penalties. The first appellate authority upheld this decision. The appellant cited a Division Bench decision and argued that the invoices could be endorsed in their name, which was accepted by the Tribunal judge. The judge found in favor of the appellant based on the precedent.

2. The appellant also availed CENVAT Credit on services not directly or indirectly used in manufacturing, which was disputed by the authorities. The appellant argued that the services were indeed related to the manufacturing activity. The judge, referring to a previous Tribunal decision, ruled in favor of the appellant, allowing them to avail CENVAT Credit on these services.

3. The appellant disagreed with the first appellate authority's decision and challenged it in the Tribunal. The judge considered the arguments from both sides and reviewed the records. Finding merit in the appellant's contentions and citing relevant legal precedents, the judge set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal.

4. The eligibility of the appellant to avail CENVAT Credit on various services used in manufacturing was also a point of contention. The judge noted that the services in question were indeed used for the manufacturing activity of the appellant. Referring to a Tribunal decision, the judge concluded that the appellant was eligible to avail CENVAT Credit on these services. Consequently, the judge ruled in favor of the appellant based on the legal principles and precedents presented by their counsel.