2018 (1) TMI 153 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - rented godown situated outside the factory premises - denial on the ground that the invoices raised against the appellants were not having proper registration numbers - Held that - the appellants have also produced a Certificate on record by the service provider indicating registration number, in which case, the lower authorities should have accepted the same instead of observing that the invoices have not been rectified. Rectification of the invoices would have also included the same registration number, which stands mentioned in the Certificate - credit allowed. Apart from the credit, the stand for denial of the credit is on the ground that during the relevant period, the appellant had not stored non-duty paid sugar in the said godown - Held that - Inasmuch as the godown was taken on rent by the appellant for the purpose of storing of sugar, the fact of non-use of the same during the initial period, cannot lead to denial of credit to the appellants. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Availment of cenvat credit of service tax paid on rented godown outside factory premises under "Renting of Immovable Property" category.
2. Denial of credit due to lack of proper registration numbers on invoices.
3. Denial of credit based on non-storage of non-duty paid sugar in the godown during the relevant period.

Analysis:
1. The dispute in the present appeal revolves around the appellants' claim for cenvat credit of service tax paid on a rented godown situated outside the factory premises. The Revenue sought to deny a portion of the credit citing improper registration numbers on the invoices. The appellants argued that since the same service provider was involved, and the Revenue had accepted the provider as duly registered in some cases, the lack of registration number on certain invoices should not be a reason for denial. They also presented a Certificate from the service provider with the registration number, which the lower authorities did not consider. The Tribunal held that if the Revenue had accepted service tax paid on certain invoices with registration numbers, denying credit for others without the number was unjustified. The Certificate provided by the service provider should have been accepted, as rectifying the invoices would have included the same registration number, thus finding no valid reason to deny the credit.

2. Apart from the registration number issue, the denial of credit was also based on the appellant's alleged non-storage of non-duty paid sugar in the godown during the relevant period. The appellant clarified that although there was a period initially when the godown was not used for storing sugar, it was eventually utilized for this purpose. The Tribunal reasoned that since the godown was rented for storing sugar, the temporary non-use during the initial period should not result in the denial of credit to the appellants. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief granted to the appellant.

This judgment highlights the importance of consistent treatment by Revenue in accepting service tax payments and registration numbers on invoices. It also emphasizes that the purpose for which a property is rented should be the determining factor for availing credits, rather than temporary non-use during an initial period.