2015 (12) TMI 339 - AT - Service Tax

Denial of CENVAT Credit - address on the document of the office on which credit has been taken are not mentioning Assessee s address - Held that - whereas there is no dispute regarding availment of Cenvat Credit by the assessee in their other locations, Cenvat Credit is entitled to take at their registered office. Therefore, following the judicial pronouncement 2013 (2) TMI 312 - CESTAT MUMBAI , 2009 (10) TMI 434 - CESTAT, BANGALORE , 2014 (5) TMI 1012 - CESTAT NEW DELHI , 2010 (7) TMI 319 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD & 2012 (12) TMI 612 - CESTAT NEW DELHI I hold that appellant has correctly taken Cenvat Credit at their registered office at New Delhi. Therefore, impugned proceedings were not required against the appellant.

Summary

Issues: Denial of Cenvat Credit based on address discrepancy on documents

Analysis:
1. Issue of Denial of Cenvat Credit: The appellant appealed against the denial of Cenvat Credit due to discrepancies in the address mentioned on the documents related to the office where the credit was taken. The appellant's registered office was in New Delhi, while they also had offices in Gurgaon and Hyderabad without centralized registration.

2. Factual Background: The appellant utilized services at their Gurgaon and Hyderabad offices but took credit at their registered office in New Delhi. An investigation revealed that the address on the invoices was from the Gurgaon or Hyderabad office, leading to the denial of Cenvat Credit.

3. Legal Arguments: The argument presented was that the appellant did not comply with Rule 9 of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 and Rule 4(a) of the Service Tax, and failed to follow the Centralized Billing system. Reference was made to various judicial pronouncements such as Jindal Stainless Steelway Ltd. and others to support the contention.

4. Judicial Precedents: The judgment cited several cases where it was held that Cenvat Credit could be availed at the registered office, even if services were utilized at other locations. Relying on these precedents, the tribunal concluded that the appellant rightfully claimed Cenvat Credit at their New Delhi office.

5. Decision: The tribunal set aside the impugned orders, allowing the appeals with any consequential relief. The judgment emphasized that as per established legal principles, the appellant was entitled to take Cenvat Credit at their registered office, despite the services being used at different locations.

In conclusion, the judgment resolved the issue of denial of Cenvat Credit based on address discrepancies by upholding the appellant's right to claim the credit at their registered office in New Delhi, in line with established legal precedents and rules governing Cenvat Credit.