2018 (7) TMI 917 - AT - Service Tax

CENVAT Credit - various input services - denial on the ground that the sites were not included in the list of the centralized registration - Held that - Merely for the reason that respective sites were not included in the centralized registration certificate issued to the appellant, it cannot be a valid ground to deny the credit, as the out put services rendered in these sites must have suffered appropriate service tax - also there is no dispute of the fact that the input services were not utilized in providing the out put services - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against Order-in-Appeal denying Cenvat credit on input services due to sites not included in centralized registration certificate.

Analysis:
The appellant, engaged in providing various taxable services, availed Cenvat credit on input services during April 2009 to March 2010. The dispute arose when certain sites were not initially included in the centralized registration certificate. A show cause notice was issued for recovery of credit, interest, and penalty. The demand was confirmed after adjudication, leading to the appellant's appeal before the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals), who upheld the decision, prompting the current appeal.

The appellant's representative argued that the services were provided at different sites, with centralized service tax registration used to discharge liabilities at these locations. Although some sites were not initially included in the registration, a request was made to include them later, which was eventually approved. The representative contended that the credit on input services utilized at these sites should not be denied, as appropriate service tax was paid for the services rendered at these locations.

On the other hand, the Revenue's representative supported the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals)'s findings. However, the Member (Judicial) highlighted that the mere absence of certain sites from the centralized registration certificate should not be a valid reason to deny the credit. It was emphasized that the output services provided at these sites would have incurred the necessary service tax, and there was no dispute regarding the utilization of input services for these outputs. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with any consequential relief as per the law.

In conclusion, the judgment favored the appellant by overturning the decision to deny Cenvat credit on input services due to certain sites not being included in the centralized registration certificate. The ruling emphasized that as long as the output services at these sites incurred the required service tax and the input services were utilized for these outputs, the credit should not be withheld based solely on registration technicalities.