2018 (4) TMI 1241 - AT - Service Tax

CENVAT credit - there are separate registration on account of some branches - main ground on which cenvat credit was denied is lack of proper document for transferring credit lying at various branches to the zonal office upon approval of centralized registration - Held that - appellant is a public sector undertaking Bank, no individual interest is involved - The fact remains that the documents were available in the books of account and as mentioned no individual interest is involved. There is no statutory requirement of specified documents for transferring credit available with the multiples registrations to centralized registration - credit cannot be denied - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Centralized registration of a Public Sector Undertaking Bank for service tax, denial of Cenvat credit, penalties imposed, lack of proper documents for transferring credit to zonal office.

Analysis:

1. Centralized Registration and Cenvat Credit Denial:
The appellant, a Public Sector Undertaking Bank, filed for centralized registration for all branches under Bhopal Zone to the zonal office. The issue arose when proceedings were initiated regarding the eligibility for Cenvat Credit of the amount originally availed by over 400 branches with separate service tax registrations. The appellant contested the denial of credit and penalties imposed, arguing that the credits were transferred to the zonal office based on intimation by branch Heads and were duly available to branch offices without irregularities. The Revenue representative insisted that valid supporting documents were necessary for credits under centralized registration.

2. Legal Considerations and Decision:
After hearing both parties and reviewing the evidence, the Tribunal noted that the appellant, being a public sector undertaking Bank, did not involve individual interests in the credit transfer. The main reason for denying Cenvat credit was the lack of specified documents for transferring credits from multiple branch registrations to centralized registration. However, since the documents were available in the books of account and there was no statutory requirement for specified documents, the Tribunal concluded that the transfer of credit should not be denied when there was no dispute about the credits originally availed by various branches. The Tribunal emphasized that there was no distribution of credit in this scenario.

3. Judgment and Conclusion:
Based on the factual findings and legal analysis, the Tribunal held that the impugned order denying Cenvat credit and imposing penalties was not sustainable. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the order and allowed the appeal filed by the appellant, emphasizing the lack of necessity for specified documents for transferring credits to centralized registration in the absence of any dispute regarding the original credits availed by the branches.