Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2013 (9) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (9) TMI 325 - AT - Service TaxEligibility of CENVAT Credit of Service Tax paid on the services received by the appellant and invoices raised in the name of their head office - Services were received by the appellant and head office of the appellant was not registered as input service distributor Held that - Non-endorsement of invoices in the name of head office and after the credit availed by the factory, is a curable defect and can be issued subsequently as long as there is no dispute as regards receipt of the services and Service Tax liability being discharged by service provider Decided in favor of Assessee.
Issues:
Eligibility of CENVAT Credit of Service Tax paid on services received by the appellant and invoices raised in the name of their head office. Analysis: The appeal was against Order-in-Appeal No.BC/244/ SURAT-II/2011, where the appellant availed credit of service tax paid on maintenance of SAP system for their production units without taking proportionate credit. The Department contended the appellant was not eligible for credit as the services were not used directly or indirectly in or in relation to the manufacture of final products. The demand of Rs.2,17,075/- was confirmed with interest and penalty by the adjudicating authority. The first appellate authority upheld the decision. Upon review, it was found that the issue revolved around the eligibility of CENVAT Credit of Service Tax paid on services received by the appellant with invoices in the name of their head office. The services were undisputedly received during the relevant period, and the head office was not registered as an input service distributor. Referring to a previous case, it was noted that non-endorsement of invoices in the head office's name was a curable defect, provided there was no dispute regarding service receipt and tax payment by the service provider. The decision in the previous case was deemed applicable, favoring the appellant and rendering the impugned order unsustainable. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.
|