2017 (6) TMI 892 - AT - Central Excise

Refund of CENVAT credit - duty paying invoices - denial on the ground that bills/invoices were found ineligible - Held that - such inadequacies of their coming in the invoices are, for that matter distribution of credit without registration as input service distributor, are only procedural irregularity, nonetheless they are curable defects - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against order of Commissioner (Appeals) rejecting refund claim for Cenvat credit on bills/invoices due to procedural irregularities.

Analysis:
The appellants filed six appeals against the impugned order dated 26.11.2015 passed by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals). The main contention was that the bills/invoices were not addressed to the appellant's unit, and certain records lacked details related to the appellant. The appellant argued that the address mentioned in the bills/invoices pertained to their corporate office, making them eligible for input service tax credit. However, the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the refund claim, stating that the input services received at the corporate office were not related to the manufacture of the final product at the appellant's factory. Additionally, the appellant had not obtained Input Service Distribution Registration for distributing input services to their branches/factory. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the rejection of the refund claim based on the above grounds.

The appellant's counsel contended that the issue was settled based on various decisions by different benches and the High Court of Ahmedabad. Referring to cases such as Pricol Ltd. Vs. CCE, Doshion Ltd Vs. CCE, and Forech India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, the counsel argued that non-registration as an Input Service Distributor was a procedural irregularity and a curable defect. The Tribunal's Chennai Bench in the case of Forech India Pvt. Ltd. had set aside the denial of input service credit due to procedural irregularities, following the precedent set by previous decisions.

During the hearing, the ld. AR opposed the appeals, highlighting that the issue concerned not only input services received at other units but also the availment of Cenvat credit at the corporate office. However, it was acknowledged that this aspect was not explicitly addressed in the impugned order. After hearing both sides and examining the records, the Tribunal found that the case laws cited by the appellant supported their position. The Tribunal agreed that the inadequacies in invoices and distribution of credit without registration as an Input Service Distributor were procedural irregularities, which could be rectified. Consequently, all six appeals were allowed with any consequential benefits as per the law.

In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, allowing the appeals and granting relief based on the established legal principles regarding procedural irregularities in claiming Cenvat credit on bills/invoices.