2012 (12) TMI 937 - AT - Central Excise

Denial of CENVAT Credit - Input received in the name of other company - Held that - this is a case where Rule 9(2) of Cenvat Credit Rules could have been and should have been applied. In this case actually objection of the Revenue is that invoice was not in the name of the unit, but Head Office. It is not the name of the receiver of service, but address of the receiver should be there in the invoice, is one of the requirements which is compulsory under Rule 9(2). Since there is no dispute that services were received in the unit where credit has been utilized and the Commissioner (A) has satisfied by verifying the same and this is not under challenge by the Revenue, credit has been correctly taken. Even otherwise in the decision cited by the ld. Counsel, this Tribunal has taken the view that credit can be transferred by Head Office to the unit - Following decision of Tribunal in the case of Modern Petrofils 2010 (7) TMI 319 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD and Samita Conductors Ltd. 2012 (11) TMI 432 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Availment of credit for services received by a unit of the company when invoices were not in the name of that unit.
2. Requirement of registration as Input Service Distributor for the head office to avail credit.
3. Applicability of Rule 9(2) of Cenvat Credit Rules regarding the name and address on the invoice.
4. Transfer of credit by the Head Office to the unit as per precedent decisions of the Tribunal.

Analysis:
1. The judgment deals with the issue of whether the appellant company could avail credit for services received by one of its units when the invoices were not in the name of that unit. The Commissioner (A) found that the services were indeed received by the unit, even though the invoices were addressed to the Head Office. The Tribunal held that Rule 9(2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules could have been applied in this case. The rule requires the address of the receiver to be on the invoice, not necessarily the name. Since the services were utilized by the unit where they were received, and the Commissioner was satisfied after verification, the credit was deemed correctly taken.

2. Another issue raised was the requirement of the head office being registered as an Input Service Distributor to avail credit. The absence of this registration was pointed out by the appellant's representative. However, the Tribunal did not find this to be a hindrance in this case, as the main concern was the address on the invoices, not the registration status of the head office.

3. The Tribunal also considered the applicability of precedent decisions in similar cases, such as the transfer of credit by the Head Office to the unit. Citing previous Tribunal judgments, the Tribunal concluded that credit could indeed be transferred by the Head Office to the unit, further supporting the appellant's position in this case. Therefore, the issue was deemed to be covered by established legal precedents.

4. Lastly, the Tribunal addressed the cross objection filed by the respondent, which became irrelevant after the main appeal was rejected. The Tribunal disposed of both the appeal and the cross objection accordingly. Overall, the Tribunal found no merit in the appeal filed by the Revenue and rejected it based on the above analysis and legal considerations.