2015 (1) TMI 141 - AT - Service Tax

CENVAT Credit - Interest u/s 11AB - Penalty u/s 11AC - Invoices in name of other unit - Held that - The appellant in this case have nine units where the same product is manufactured. Therefore, the doubt of nexus of input and output products will not arise. Ld. Counsel has also shown a particular invoice issued by a CHA in the name of the Head Office. It is quite natural that the service provided by a CHA would be in the name of the Head Office where clearance of goods through Customs will be centralized. I agree that a doubt has never been raised regarding the actual receipt of the services. The only basis for denying credit has been that invoices are either in the name of another unit of the appellant or in the name of their Head Office. The judgments cited above touch upon the issue at hand in support of the case of the appellant. There being no allegation of the service have not been received, the credit stands to be allowed. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against demand of Service Tax under Rule 14 of Cenvat Credit Rules read with Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, appropriate interest under Section 11AB, and equivalent penalty under Section 11AC.

Analysis:
The appellant, engaged in the manufacture of natural gases, appealed against the demand of Service Tax amounting to &8377; 3,86,656. The demand was raised due to invoices for which credit was availed being in the name of their head office or another unit, leading to the conclusion that the appellant should have been registered for ISD registration. The Department invoked the extended time period under Section 11A. The appellant's counsel argued that services were indeed utilized at the Patalganga unit, providing evidence of correlation between invoices and services received. He also highlighted that the question of actual receipt of services was not raised earlier. Citing relevant judgments, the counsel argued that availing services at different places from the address mentioned in invoices is a procedural formality, especially before the amendment in Rule 7 of Cenvat Credit Rules in 2012. The Assistant Commissioner reiterated the authority's findings but failed to verify if services were actually received at the Patalganga unit.

The tribunal carefully considered the contentions and noted that the appellant operates nine units manufacturing the same product, eliminating doubts about the nexus of input and output products. A specific invoice issued by a Clearing House Agent (CHA) in the name of the Head Office was deemed natural due to centralized clearance of goods through Customs. The tribunal agreed that the actual receipt of services was never questioned, and the denial of credit was solely based on invoices being in the name of another unit or the Head Office. Referring to the judgments presented, the tribunal concluded that since there was no allegation of services not being received, the credit should be allowed. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the decision was pronounced in court.