2014 (2) TMI 919 - AT - Central Excise

Rectification of mistake - while the show cause notice proposes to deny CENVAT credit on the ground that the invoices were issued in the name of the head office whereas the credit is taken at the factory - Held that - The order does not propose anything which is not sanctioned by the statute. Credit can be availed on receipt of services and services so received are utilized in relation to the manufacture of final products. The order merely makes obvious this position. Therefore, I do not find any mistake in the impugned order - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Denial of CENVAT credit on the ground of invoices issued in the name of head office.
2. Direction for verification of nexus between receipt of services and manufacturing activity.

Analysis:
1. The appellant filed a ROM application challenging the direction in the impugned order regarding the denial of CENVAT credit due to invoices being issued in the name of the head office. The order directed verification of whether the input services indicated in the invoices were actually received at the manufacturing premises and had a nexus with the manufacturing activity. The appellant argued that the notice did not raise any issue regarding the nexus between receipt of service and its utilization in manufacturing. However, the Tribunal held that credit can be availed upon receipt of services utilized in relation to manufacturing final products, and the order simply clarified this position. The Tribunal found no error in the impugned order and dismissed the application for rectification of mistake.

2. The second issue involved the direction for verification of the nexus between the receipt of services and the manufacturing activity undertaken by the appellant. The appellant contended that this direction was an error apparent on the face of the record. However, the Tribunal examined the impugned order and determined that it did not propose anything beyond what is allowed by the statute. The order clarified that credit can be availed when services received are utilized in the manufacturing process. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that there was no mistake in the impugned order and dismissed the application for rectification of mistake.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the direction for verification of the nexus between the receipt of services and manufacturing activity, emphasizing that credit can be availed when services are utilized in relation to manufacturing final products. The application for rectification of mistake was dismissed as lacking in merits, affirming the validity of the impugned order.