2015 (2) TMI 427 - AT - Central Excise

Denial of CENVAT Credit - GTA service - Invoices issued in the name of other unit - Held that - So far as, the denial of Cenvat credit of ₹ 1,87,577/- is concerned, this credit had been taken on the basis of GAR-7 dated 05/10/07 under which this amount of service tax on GTA service received had been paid. On going through the GAR-7 it is seen that while the name of the appellant and address is correctly mentioned and the mistake is only the Central excise registration which is of the Khandsa road unit. I hold that just for this mistake the denial of Cenvat credit is not correct. As regards Cenvat credit of ₹ 59,876/-, though the invoices on the basis of which this credit had been taken are bear the address of Khandsa road unit, I find that subsequently the service providers had issued letters making corrections in these invoices. Moreover, it is not the departments allegation that on the basis of which these invoices Khandsa road unit has also taken the Cenvat credit and in this regard the other unit has also given an undertaking. In view of these facts, I am of the view that denial of Cenvat credit of ₹ 59,876/- is also not sustainable. - appellant is entitled to take the Cenvat Credit. Therefore, I set aside the impugned order - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Denial of Cenvat credit for GTA service due to incorrect Central Excise registration number in GAR-7.
2. Denial of Cenvat credit for invoices issued to a different unit.

Analysis:
1. The appellant had two manufacturing units, and the dispute arose regarding the Cenvat credit for GTA service at the Patudi unit. The service tax was paid under GAR-7, but the department objected to the credit due to the incorrect Central Excise registration number of the Khandsa unit in the GAR-7. The appellant argued that the denial of credit solely based on this mistake was unjustified as the appellant's name and address were correctly mentioned. The Tribunal held that such a minor error should not result in denying the Cenvat credit, ruling in favor of the appellant.

2. Another issue involved Cenvat credit for invoices issued to the Khandsa unit but utilized by the Patudi unit. The department objected to this credit as the invoices were not addressed to the Patudi unit. However, the service providers later issued corrected invoices, and the Khandsa unit confirmed not taking any credit based on those invoices. The Tribunal found that the denial of credit in this scenario was unwarranted, especially since there was no evidence of the Khandsa unit availing the credit. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, granting the appellant the right to claim the Cenvat credit for both the GTA service and the corrected invoices.

In conclusion, the Tribunal overturned the lower authorities' decisions and ruled in favor of the appellant, allowing them to avail the Cenvat credit for both the GTA service and the invoices issued to the Khandsa unit but utilized by the Patudi unit.