2015 (11) TMI 207 - AT - Central Excise

Availment of CENVAT Credit - invoices for the input service which were invoiced not in the name of the appellant but to the Divisions of L&T - interest under Section 11AB - penalty under Section 11AC - Held that - whole case is revolving only on the aspect that invoices of services are not bearing the address of the appellant. However the name of the appellant is indeed mentioned in the invoices. I think on that basis alone it was wrongly concluded by the lower authority that in absence of address it cannot be ascertained that the services provided and covered under the input services invoices were meant for the appellant. I observed that name of the appellant is clearly mentioned on the invoices alongwith name and the address of the job worker i.e. M/s. R&C, SBS Marg, Mulund has also mentioned - even though if there is doubt about service recipient due to reason that address of the appellant is not appearing on the invoices, by corroboration of the books of account and payment particulars made against the said invoices, it can be ascertained that service recipient is the appellant and nobody else. However these facts of accounting of bills in the books of account of the appellant and accounting of payment made by the appellant to the service recipient were not verified by the lower authority. In my considered view the matter deserves to be remand to the original authority for this limited purpose. I am of the considered view if it is found that against the disputed invoices, the payment is made by the appellant and they have accounted for such demand in their books of account. This is a sufficient proof that the appellant is recipient of the service irrespective of the fact that invoices also bearing name and address of the job worker. - Matter remanded back - Decided in favour of assesee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Denial of Cenvat Credit due to invoices not bearing appellant's name.
2. Dispute over the recipient of services based on invoice details.
3. Appeal against rejection of Cenvat Credit by lower authorities.

Analysis:
Issue 1: The appellant availed Cenvat Credit on invoices not in their name, leading to the denial of credit. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand, imposed penalties, and interest. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the decision, prompting the appeal.

Issue 2: The appellant argued that despite the job worker's name on the invoices, services were for them. They contended that payment was made directly to the service provider, establishing receipt and usage of services in manufacturing. Legal precedents were cited to support this claim.

Issue 3: The Revenue maintained that the lack of the appellant's address on the invoices created ambiguity. They argued that without a clear nexus between the invoices and the appellant, Cenvat Credit denial was justified. The Tribunal observed that the appellant's name was on the invoices, indicating a connection.

The Tribunal found that the case hinged on the absence of the appellant's address on the invoices. Despite this, the appellant's name was clearly stated, suggesting a link to the services. The Tribunal emphasized that the job worker was acting on behalf of the appellant, justifying service receipt. The appellant's consistent accounting of these transactions further supported their claim. The matter was remanded to verify payment details and accounting, with instructions to grant Cenvat Credit if found in order, emphasizing adherence to natural justice principles.