2015 (2) TMI 438 - AT - Service Tax

Denial of CENVAT Credit - Invoices issued prior to registration - whether Cenvat Credit of Service Tax paid on input service can be denied to the appellant on the ground that invoices on the basis of which credit was taken are issued prior to registration of the appellants on 11/10/2004 - Held that - Sutham Polyesters Limited vs. CCE, Coimbatore - 2005 (6) TMI 346 - CESTAT, CHENNAI , Well known Polyesters Limited vs. CCE, Vapi 2011 (1) TMI 664 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD , Amar Remedies vs. CCE, Surat - 2010 (7) TMI 333 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD and CCE, Ahmd vs. Fine Care Bio-systems - 2009 (7) TMI 142 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD - Since the issue is covered in favour of the appellant by the precedent decisions of this Tribunal, respectfully following the same - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Whether Cenvat Credit of Service Tax paid on input service can be denied to the appellant due to invoices issued before registration.

Analysis:
In this judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ahmedabad, the primary issue revolves around the denial of Cenvat Credit of Service Tax paid on input service to the appellant. The crux of the matter is whether the credit can be refused based on the timing of the issuance of invoices before the appellant's registration on 11/10/2004. The appellant, engaged in commercial construction services, faced denial of credit for the period between 10/09/2004 and 11/10/2004 due to lack of registration during that time. The appellant argued that registration was promptly sought post the services becoming taxable on 10/09/2004 and relied on various Tribunal decisions to support the contention that credit cannot be denied solely on the grounds of lack of registration during the relevant period.

The judgment delves into the submissions made by the appellant's counsel, highlighting the reliance on precedent cases that support the appellant's position. Specifically, the judgment references cases such as Sutham Polyesters Limited vs. CCE, Coimbatore, Well known Polyesters Limited vs. CCE, Vapi AHM, Amar Remedies vs. CCE, Surat, and CCE, Ahmd vs. Fine Care Bio-systems. These cases have established a consistent view that credit should not be denied based on the absence of a registration certificate during the relevant period.

The Tribunal, after considering the arguments presented and the precedents cited, concludes that the issue at hand is adequately covered in favor of the appellant by the decisions of the Tribunal in similar cases. Consequently, the appeals are allowed in favor of the appellant, with any consequential relief granted as necessary. The judgment signifies the importance of established precedents in shaping decisions related to Cenvat Credit entitlement and registration timing, providing clarity and consistency in such matters within the legal framework.