2017 (4) TMI 888 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - case of the department is that appellant have availed credit on the invoices issued by their regional marketing office which is not registered as input service distributor during the period 16-6-2005 to 5-1-2006 - Held that - obtaining registration and distribution of the service is procedural requirement and for such procedural lapse credit cannot be denied - credit allowed - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Availing Cenvat credit based on invoices from unregistered Regional Marketing Office; Denial of credit due to lack of registration; Legality of credit distribution post registration requirement; Interpretation of procedural requirements for Cenvat credit distribution.

Analysis:
The case revolves around the respondent availing Cenvat credit based on invoices from their unregistered Regional Marketing Office, leading to a show cause notice for denial of credit due to the office not being registered as an input service distributor during a specific period. The department contended that credit distributed without registration post the registration provisions' effective date is illegal. The Order-in-Original confirmed the Cenvat credit demand and interest under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, prompting the appellant to appeal before the Commissioner(Appeals), who allowed the appeal, leading to the Revenue's challenge.

The Revenue argued that post the effective date, Cenvat credit distribution for input services required registered input service distributors, making the invoices from the unregistered office invalid for credit. They cited various judgments to support their stance that registration is a mandatory condition for availing benefits subject to certain conditions. On the other hand, the respondent's counsel argued that the registration and credit distribution process is a procedural requirement under service tax rules, with no fresh duty payment involved, as the duty or service tax is already paid by the manufacturer or service provider.

The Tribunal carefully considered both sides' submissions and the precedent set by various judgments. It was noted that the denial of Cenvat credit solely based on the Regional Marketing Office's lack of registration was a procedural lapse, and as per the cited judgments, such procedural lapses do not warrant credit denial. Upholding the Commissioner(Appeals)'s order, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, emphasizing that the procedural requirement for registration and credit distribution does not necessitate interference. The judgment highlights the importance of procedural compliance in availing Cenvat credit and the legal interpretation of registration requirements for credit distribution.

This detailed analysis of the judgment showcases the legal complexities surrounding Cenvat credit availing, procedural requirements, and the significance of precedent in determining the legality of credit distribution based on registration conditions.