2017 (3) TMI 867 - AT - Service Tax

CENVAT credit - procedural lapses - whether credit of Cenvat taken on the basis of ISD Invoices issued by the Head Office of the appellant units is deniable for curable or procedural lapses like non-mention of PAN based registration number, address of service provider etc.? - Held that - the appellants have made substantial compliance with the provisions of taking Cenvat credit read with the provisions for Input service distribution. Whatever, minor infarction of the Rules has occurred, it appears to be due to the bulk nature of the data and there appears to be no deliberate disobedience of law - the appellants are entitled to Cenvat credit from their Head Office/input service distributor - there is no contumacious conduct or deliberate defiance of law and accordingly the extended period of limitation is not attracted - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues involved:
Appeal against denial of Cenvat credit based on ISD Invoices for procedural lapses like non-mention of PAN based registration number, address of service provider, and inter unit distribution of credit.

Analysis:
The appellant, a manufacturer of soap detergent, appealed against the denial of Cenvat credit based on ISD Invoices issued by their Head office. The main issue was whether the credit taken on ISD Invoices could be denied due to procedural lapses. The appellant argued that all mandatory details required by Rule 4A of Service Tax Rules were provided through accompanying certificates and mentioned on the ISD Invoices, substantially complying with the rules.

The relevant provisions of Rule 7 of CCR, 2004 and Rule 9 of CCR, 2004 were highlighted during the proceedings. Rule 7 provides conditions for credit distribution by an ISD, while Rule 9 specifies the documents on which Cenvat credit can be taken, including ISD Invoices. The rules were explained in detail to support the appellant's case.

The appellant's counsel argued against the allegations raised by Revenue, such as non-PAN based registration numbers, missing service provider addresses, and equal credit distribution to all units. The counsel provided explanations for each issue, citing the absence of restrictions on inter-unit credit adjustment during the relevant period. The appellant maintained a database of service providers' complete addresses and provided it to Revenue when required.

The ISD Invoices issued by the Head office were examined, showing compliance with necessary details and accompanied by a certificate from a Chartered Accountant. The appellant demonstrated substantial compliance with the rules, and it was argued that any minor infractions were due to the bulk nature of data, not deliberate disobedience of the law.

After considering the arguments from both sides and reviewing the records, the Tribunal found that the appellants had substantially complied with the provisions for taking Cenvat credit and input service distribution. It was noted that any minor infractions were not deliberate, and there was no contumacious conduct or deliberate defiance of the law. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order, and disposed of the related applications.

In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, allowing the Cenvat credit from the Head office/input service distributor and determining that the extended period of limitation was not applicable in this case. The appeal was allowed with consequential benefits, and the impugned order was set aside.