2017 (5) TMI 390 - AT - Service Tax

CENVAT credit - credit taken for the unit not registered - centralized registration not there - case of appellant is that The credit so availed was utilized towards payment of Service Tax in respect of the services provided by the appellant. Therefore, the only reason that the site at which the services were used being non-registered, the credit cannot be denied - Rule 3, Rule 4 read with Rule 2 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and Rule 4(2) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 Held that - the output services provided by the appellant either from their Powai premises or at site, the appellant is a sole service provider for such services. The Service Tax is paid by the appellant on the entire services which is provided either from the Powai unit or at site. Therefore, the CENVAT Credit in respect of input and input services used for providing the services at site including the services of sub-contractor are admissible input services. Therefore, there is no reason for denying the credit on such services - credit allowed - decided in favor of assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Admissibility of CENVAT Credit for services received at non-registered locations.
2. Centralized registration requirement under Rule 4(2) of Service Tax Rules, 1994.
3. Utilization of CENVAT Credit towards payment of Service Tax.
4. Precedent and consistency in judicial decisions.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Admissibility of CENVAT Credit for services received at non-registered locations:
The appellants, engaged in manufacturing excisable goods and availing CENVAT Credit, faced objections from the department for taking Service Tax credit amounting to ?2,38,57,646/- for services received at locations other than their registered Powai office. The department argued that credit could only be availed if the unit had centralized registration under Rule 4(2) of Service Tax Rules, 1994. The appellants contended that services provided at different sites were related to projects executed by their Powai office, making them admissible input services. They cited several judgments supporting their stance, including Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai Vs. Areva T & D India Ltd., Commissioner of Central Excise, Vapi Vs. Alidhara Textool Engineers Pvt. Ltd., and Radhe Renewable Energy Development Pvt. Ltd.

2. Centralized registration requirement under Rule 4(2) of Service Tax Rules, 1994:
The department's case hinged on the lack of centralized registration for the appellants' various locations. However, the appellants argued that the services used at different sites were integral to the projects managed by their registered Powai office. Previous rulings, such as in Areva T & D India Ltd., clarified that services provided by subcontractors and used at different locations still qualify as input services if they are related to the primary service provider's operations.

3. Utilization of CENVAT Credit towards payment of Service Tax:
The appellants utilized the credit towards payment of Service Tax for services provided by their Powai office. The Tribunal found that the appellants were the sole service provider for services rendered from Powai or at the site, and thus, the CENVAT Credit for input services, including subcontractor services, was admissible. This was consistent with the Tribunal's decisions in similar cases, such as Alidhara Textool Engineers Pvt. Ltd., where it was held that services incidental to manufacturing, even if provided at the buyer's premises, were eligible for credit.

4. Precedent and consistency in judicial decisions:
The Tribunal noted that in the appellants' own case, similar issues had been resolved in their favor by the jurisdictional Commissioner, with no appeals filed by the Revenue against those decisions. Additionally, the Tribunal referenced multiple judgments affirming that input services used at sites other than the registered location were admissible for credit. These included decisions in Areva T & D India Ltd., Alidhara Textool Engineers Pvt. Ltd., and Radhe Renewable Energy Development Pvt. Ltd., which consistently upheld the admissibility of such credits.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the appellants were entitled to the CENVAT Credit for input services used at various sites, as these services were related to the projects managed by their registered Powai office. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed. The miscellaneous application was dismissed as withdrawn. The judgment emphasized the consistency in legal interpretations and the importance of adhering to established precedents in similar cases.