2017 (2) TMI 1062 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - duty paying documents - denial of credit on the ground that the input service invoices were in the name of their Head Office, at Mumbai, which was not registered as an Input Service distributor - Held that - the issue is covered by the decision of Hon ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Dashion Ltd 2016 (2) TMI 183 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT , where it was held that when it was found that full records were maintained and the irregularity, if at all, was procedural and when it was further found that the records were available for the Revenue to verify the correctness, the Tribunal, rightly did not disentitle the assessee from the entire Cenvat credit availed for payment of duty - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Admissibility of Cenvat Credit on input services invoiced in the name of the Head Office not registered as an Input Service Distributor.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against an order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) confirming the demand for recovery of Cenvat Credit availed on input services by the appellant, engaged in manufacturing excisable goods. The appellant had availed credit on input services with invoices in the name of their Head Office, which was not registered as an Input Service distributor. The appellant argued that since all input services were received at their factory and used in manufacturing excisable goods, the credit should be admissible despite the invoices being in the name of the Head Office. The appellant cited a decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court to support their argument.

The Revenue, represented by the Authorized Representative, reiterated the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) rejecting the appellant's appeal. The Tribunal observed that the issue revolved around the invoices not being in the name of the factory at Vadodara but in the name of the Head Office, which was not registered as an Input Service Distributor. The Tribunal referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in a similar case where it was noted that non-registration as an input service distributor should not automatically disentitle the distributor from availing Cenvat credit, especially when full records were maintained, and any irregularity was procedural. The Tribunal concluded that the appellant should not be denied the Cenvat credit merely due to the procedural irregularity of the Head Office not being registered as an Input Service Distributor.

Based on the above analysis, the Tribunal found no merit in the impugned order and set it aside, allowing the appeal with consequential relief, if any, as per the law. The decision highlighted the importance of maintaining records and the procedural nature of the registration requirement for Input Service Distributors in determining the admissibility of Cenvat credit on input services.