2017 (9) TMI 984 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - duty paying invoices - different address was mentioned in the invoice - Held that - except that the invoices were issued on the different address of the appellant s own company and not at the address of the appellant, however, receipt and use of the services is not under dispute - It is not the case of the Revenue that same credit was availed by some other location of the appellant. The only condition is that same credit should not be taken twice at two different location, which is not the case here - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Availment of Cenvat credit based on invoices with different addresses.

Analysis:
The case involved the appellant availing Cenvat credit for various input services invoiced from their branch office or Delhi office. The appellant's counsel argued that despite the address discrepancy on certain invoices, all services were utilized by the appellant, and the company name was correctly mentioned. It was emphasized that there was no evidence of services being used at a different location or credit being availed twice. The counsel cited multiple judgments supporting their stance, highlighting that credit could be availed at any location within the same company as long as it was not duplicated. The Revenue reiterated the findings of the impugned order, but the tribunal, after considering both sides' submissions, concluded that as all locations belonged to the same company, credit could be availed at any place without the risk of duplication. The tribunal relied on the judgments presented by the appellant's counsel and set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeals. The decision was pronounced in court on 31/07/2017.