2018 (8) TMI 958 - AT - Service Tax

CENVAT Credit - duty paying documents - denial on the premise that the invoices are not in the name of the appellant - Held that - It is a fact on record that service tax paid by M/s Baheti Soya Links has been paid in the name of M/s Baheti Agro Links. In that circumstances, the appellant is entitled to avail cenvat credit on the invoices which are in the name of M/s Baheti Soya Links - the appellant has correctly availed the credit. CENVAT Credit - input services - telephone services - denial on the premise that telephones were installed in the office of the appellant are in the name of the partners - Held that - The telephones is used by the appellant for providing for taxable service and these telephones are installed in the office of the appellant, although in the name of the partners - the appellant is entitled to avail cenvat credit on the telephone services. Credit allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Denial of cenvat credit on invoices not in the name of the appellant.
2. Denial of cenvat credit on telephone services due to phones being in the name of partners.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Denial of cenvat credit on invoices not in the name of the appellant
The appellant, a partnership firm, was denied cenvat credit on invoices not in their name, specifically from M/s Baheti Soya Links. The Revenue argued that since M/s Baheti Soya Links was a separate unit, cenvat credit should be denied. However, the appellant contended that M/s Baheti Soya Links is a division of M/s Baheti Agri Link, and services tax paid by M/s Baheti Soya Links had been accepted by the Department through M/s Baheti Agri Links. The Tribunal found that since service tax was paid by M/s Baheti Soya Links in the name of M/s Baheti Agro Links, the appellant was entitled to avail cenvat credit on those invoices. Thus, the Tribunal held that the appellant had correctly availed the credit.

Issue 2: Denial of cenvat credit on telephone services due to phones being in the name of partners
The second issue involved the denial of cenvat credit on telephone services because the phones were installed in the office of the appellant but were in the name of the partners. The Revenue argued that since the phones were in the partners' names, cenvat credit should not be allowed. However, the Tribunal found that the phones were used by the appellant for providing taxable services. Despite being in the partners' names, the phones were installed in the office of the appellant. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the appellant was entitled to avail cenvat credit on the telephone services.

In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, finding no merit in the denial of cenvat credit on both the invoices not in the appellant's name and the telephone services. The appeal was allowed, granting consequential relief to the appellant.