2016 (12) TMI 232 - AT - Service Tax

Principle of seperate purposes - CENVAT credit - renting of immovable property service - forged invoices on which credit availed - invoices instead of being in the name of appellants were in the name of Shri D.C. Shah and Others - appellant claims that the name D.C. Shah and Others is used synonymously with that of the individual co-owners of the block - reliance was placed in the case of Pharmalab Process Equipments Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE Ahmedabad 2009 (4) TMI 142 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD by the appellant. Held that - I find that there is no infirmity in the impugned order - Just because D.C. Shah & Co. signifies the 23 appellants they cannot be allowed to avail the CENVAT credit individually on the basis of invoice which is in the name of D.C. Shah & Co. When all the appellants can get registered individually and separately and maintain all the records accordingly what made them not to follow the same fashion in case of availment of CENVAT credit is not forthcoming. Under any circumstances an individual cannot avail CENVAT credit on the basis of invoices which is not in his name. The appellants are replying on cases wherein CENVAT credit was allowed to individual factory on the basis of invoices in the name of head office is irrelevant to the present case. The appellants are not branch offices and the D.C. Shah & Co. is not the head office. For registration sake all individual appellants are separate entities but only for availing CENVAT credit they are joint entity. This type of change of principle for separate purposes is not justified. Under this I hold that all the above appellants are not eligible to avail CENVAT credit on the basis of invoices issued in the name of D.C. Shah and Co. Further the case law relied upon by the appellant is not applicable to the case in hand as the case relates to the CENVAT credit of branch office and Head Office which is altogether different then the facts involved in the present appeals. I find no merit in the appeals of the appellants and uphold the impugned order by dismissing all the appeals of the appellants - CENVAT credit not allowed - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant-assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Appeals arising from a common impugned order dated 11.5.2010 involving rejection of appeals and confirmation of Orders-in-Original by the Commissioner (A) for 18 appellants regarding availing CENVAT credit based on invoices not in their individual names.

Analysis:
The appeals involved 18 appellants who jointly owned a property rented out to various entities, each receiving rent individually and paying service tax separately. The Department alleged that CENVAT credit was wrongly claimed based on invoices in the name of "D.C. Shah and Others" instead of individual names. The Assistant Commissioner confirmed the demand, imposing penalties. The Commissioner (A) upheld this decision, leading to the current appeals.

The appellants argued that using "D.C. Shah and Others" was a long-standing practice due to joint ownership and administrative convenience. They contended that the invoices contained necessary details and the credit was legitimate. They cited relevant case laws supporting their position. However, the Department maintained that individual rent receipts were separate for service tax purposes, and CENVAT credit could not be claimed based on invoices not in the individual's name, as per Rule 9 of CENVAT Credit Rules.

The Tribunal found no fault in the Commissioner (A)'s decision. It emphasized that individual appellants, despite being separate entities for registration, could not collectively claim CENVAT credit based on joint invoices. The Tribunal rejected the appellants' argument of administrative convenience and distinguished the case laws cited, concluding that the appellants were not entitled to avail CENVAT credit on invoices under the name of "D.C. Shah and Co."

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed all 18 appeals, upholding the impugned order of the Commissioner (A) and affirming the rejection of CENVAT credit claims based on invoices not in the individual appellants' names.

(Order pronounced in Open Court on 30/11/2016)