2018 (10) TMI 619 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT Credit - credit in respect of Dasna Unit - the entire case of the Revenue primarily rests upon the allegation that the invoices on the basis of which the appellant have availed the credit were in the name of their Delhi office and not in the name of their unit situated at Dasna - Held that - Admittedly the services have been received and utilized by the appellant at their Dasna unit inasmuch Delhi office was not in position to utilize the credit. It is also not the Revenue s case that such credit was also transferred by Delhi office to their Najibabad unit and as such there is double utilization of the same - In the absence of any allegation of non-receipt and non-utilization of the services by the assessee, the denial of credit on the sole ground that the invoices were in the address of Delhi office cannot be appreciated and upheld. As regards non registration of Delhi office as ISD, we note that the issue is no more res-integra and stands settled by various decisions of the Tribunal laying down that non-registration as ISD will not result in denial of credit. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Denial of Cenvat Credit to the appellant in respect of their Dasna Unit, imposition of penalties on Senior Manager and Manager Finance.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to three appeals arising from the denial of Cenvat Credit to the appellant for their Dasna Unit and the imposition of penalties. The appellant, engaged in manufacturing aerated water at two units, faced objections regarding the credit availed during a specific period. The dispute revolved around the eligibility of invoices from service providers, some mentioning the Delhi office address. The appellant also produced invoices from the Delhi office transferring the service tax to the Dasna unit. Despite the Delhi office not being registered as ISD during the relevant period, the Tribunal has established in various cases that non-registration does not warrant credit denial.

The Revenue's case primarily focused on invoices being in the name of the Delhi office and alleged manipulation. However, the Tribunal noted that the credit was not solely based on Delhi office invoices, as original service provider invoices were also presented. The objection regarding the address on the invoices was dismissed, considering the services were utilized at the Dasna unit, not the Delhi office. The absence of allegations of non-receipt or non-utilization of services by the appellant led to the rejection of credit denial solely based on the address discrepancy. The Tribunal cited multiple cases supporting this stance.

In conclusion, the impugned order was set aside, and all three appeals were allowed with consequential relief. The judgment emphasizes that denial of credit based solely on the address mentioned in the invoices, without evidence of non-utilization, is unjustified.