2017 (10) TMI 1043 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - duty paying documents - Rule 9(1) of CCR 2004 - Held that - Cenvat credit is entitled to be availed by the appellant for the invoices/debit notes issued in the name of the Head Office by the service provider. The service availed prior to 10/09/2004 and the invoice/debit note issued after 10/09/2004 - Held that - the issue has been decided in the case of IDEA MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX. MEERUT 2011 (11) TMI 423 - CESTAT NEW DELHI where it was held that The Commissioner s finding that during the period prior to 10-9-2004 in terms of Service Tax Credit Rules 2002 the Cenvat credit was available only in respect of those input services which were of the same category as that of output service is factually incorrect as these rules had been amended w.e.f. 14-5-2003 by N/N. 5/2003-S.T. so as to permit Cenvat credit even in respect of those input services which were not falling in the same category as that of output service. CENVAT credit - it was alleged that invoices had been issued prior to 10-9-2004 and in terms of the provisions of Rule 3(1) of Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 the Cenvat credit in respect of such invoices cannot be allowed - Rule 11(1) of CCR 2004 - Held that - there was not question of the appellant having earned any service tax credit during the period prior to 10-9-2004 - the appellant is entitled to avail Cenvat credit for the services availed prior to 10/09/2004. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Denial of Cenvat credit on invoices issued in the name of the Head Office.
2. Entitlement to avail Cenvat credit for services received prior to 10/09/2004.

Analysis:
1. The first issue revolves around the denial of Cenvat credit to the appellant based on invoices issued in the name of the Head Office. The Tribunal, in the appellant's own case, had previously allowed Cenvat credit for services received at the Corporate office and billed to the Corporate office. The Tribunal held that the credit taken by any unit at the discretion of the management is permissible. Therefore, it was established that Cenvat credit can be availed for invoices issued in the name of the Head Office by the service provider.

2. The second issue addresses the entitlement of the appellant to avail Cenvat credit for services received prior to 10/09/2004. The Tribunal referred to a case where the denial of Cenvat credit was based on invoices issued before the specified date. The Tribunal clarified that the transitional provisions of Rule 11(1) allow for the utilization of unutilized credit earned under the previous rules. It was emphasized that the appellant may have earned service tax credit under the previous rules, which should be allowed under the transitional provisions. Additionally, it was highlighted that the rules had been amended to permit Cenvat credit for input services not falling in the same category as the output service. Therefore, the appellant was deemed entitled to avail Cenvat credit for services received prior to 10/09/2004.

In conclusion, the Tribunal found that the appellant correctly availed the Cenvat credit, leading to the setting aside of the impugned order and allowing the appeal with consequential relief to the appellant.