9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (4) TMI 1289 - AT - Central ExciseCENVAT Credit - duty paying invoices - input service distribution - credit denied on the ground that though input service invoices were issued in the name of their Head Office and services wholly were not received by their factory, and payments were made from the Head Office, and it was not registered as an Input Service Distributor - invoices issued by the Head Office, could be considered as valid documents for availing CENVAT Credit by the Applicant at its factory or not - HELD THAT - The Applicant had availed the CENVAT Credit on the invoices issued by the Head Office during the relevant time, i.e. April, 2005 to December, 2006. During the relevant time, the Head Office was not registered as an 'Input Service Distributor', and hence, the invoices issued by the Head Office, prima facie, could not be valid/correct documents for availing the CENVAT Credit, being not mentioned at Rule 9 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. This Tribunal has been consistently directing predeposit in those cases where head office of the assessee-company is not registered as an 'Input Service Distributor' under the relevant provisions, but issue invoices distributing the Credit. There are also no merit in the contention of the Id. Consultant, at this stage, that to be an 'Input Service Distributor', there should be more than one unit. The Applicant are directed to deposit 10% of the CENVAT Credit of Rs.36,45,963/- within a period of eight weeks from today - On deposit of the said amount, the balance dues adjudged would stand waived and its recovery stayed during pendency of the Appeal - Compliance to be reported on 07.03.2014.
Issues:
1. Denial of CENVAT Credit and penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Analysis: The Applicant sought waiver of CENVAT Credit and penalty totaling Rs.36,45,963/- imposed under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The denial of CENVAT Credit was based on the argument that the Head Office received input service invoices and made payments, although the services were utilized at both the Head Office and the factory. The Applicant contended that since they operated only one unit in Meghalaya, registering the Head Office as an 'Input Service Distributor' was unnecessary, as it implied distribution of credit across multiple units. However, the Head Office had not obtained Service Tax Registration as an 'Input Service Distributor' during the relevant period. The Applicant challenged the denial of CENVAT Credit and the confirmation of service tax demand through two Appeals. The Revenue argued that the denial of CENVAT Credit was justified because the input service invoices were issued in the name of the Head Office, not all services were received at the factory, payments were made from the Head Office, and the Head Office was not registered as an 'Input Service Distributor'. The Revenue cited a previous Tribunal decision in a similar case to support the requirement for predeposit. After hearing both sides and examining the records, the Tribunal found that the Applicant had availed CENVAT Credit based on invoices issued by the Head Office during April 2005 to December 2006. Since the Head Office was not registered as an 'Input Service Distributor' during that time, the invoices from the Head Office were not considered valid documents for claiming CENVAT Credit. The Tribunal noted that previous decisions had directed predeposit in cases where the head office was not registered as an 'Input Service Distributor' but issued invoices distributing the credit. The Tribunal rejected the argument that being an 'Input Service Distributor' required multiple units. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the Applicant to deposit 10% of the CENVAT Credit amount within eight weeks. Failure to comply would result in the dismissal of the Appeal without further notice. Compliance was to be reported by a specified date.
|
