2016 (9) TMI 681 - AT - Central Excise

Cenvat Credit - input services - motor vehicle insurance, staff insurance policy, et cetera - documents relating to the services availed at other offices and invoices is in the name of the said offices - Held that - in respect of services received at Dhampur unit but invoice raised on corporate office, Delhi, these are fully allowable as there is on procedural lapse in taking registration as ISD after some delay. So far input services have been received at other units and the invoices are on those units, I hold that credit in respect of these, cannot be taken by the Dhampur Unit and the Commissioner (Appeals) have rightly upheld the disallowance. So far penalty imposed under Rule 15 of CCR is concerned, I find that the issue is fully interpretational and there is no deliberate default and as such the penalty imposed is also set aside. - Decided partly in favor of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against common Order-in-appeal regarding Cenvat credit disallowance on input services.

Analysis:

1. Disallowed Cenvat Credit on Input Services:
- The appellant, a manufacturer of sugar, molasses, and chemicals, faced scrutiny of ER-I Returns leading to show cause notices for taking credit on services not falling under the purview of input services as per CCR 2004.
- The Commissioner (Appeals) partially allowed Cenvat credit related to services received at Dhampur Unit, retaining the penalty imposed.
- The appellant appealed to the Tribunal, disputing the disallowance, presenting detailed arguments and documentation supporting the credit eligibility.

2. Dispute over Invoice Addressing and Credit Disallowance:
- Disallowance of credit amounting to Rs. 23,55,252/- and Rs. 15,26,474/- for services received at Dhampur Unit but invoiced to the corporate office in Delhi was contested by the appellant.
- The appellant argued that despite the invoices being addressed to the head office, credit should not be denied due to a transitional period issue regarding registration as an "input service distributor."
- The appellant cited relevant case laws to support their claim that credit should not be denied solely based on technicalities of invoice addressing.

3. Credit Distribution and Management Discretion:
- The appellant emphasized that credit can be taken by any unit at the discretion of the management, supporting the claim that services received at corporate offices and invoiced accordingly should be eligible for Cenvat credit.
- The Tribunal upheld the appellant's right to claim Cenvat credit for services received at corporate offices, allowing the credit amounts of Rs. 5,53,472/-.

4. Penalty Imposition under Rule 15 of CCR:
- The Tribunal found the penalty imposed under Rule 15 of CCR to be interpretational without deliberate default, leading to setting aside of the penalty.

5. Final Decision and Outcome:
- The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals as withdrawn and partially allowed the appellant's appeals, providing consequential benefits.
- The judgment, pronounced on 21/07/2016, concluded the case with a detailed analysis of each issue and a clear decision on the Cenvat credit disallowance and penalty imposition.