2018 (11) TMI 1376 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT Credit - denial on the ground that the duty involved is not indicated in the relevant invoices, also on the ground that the name of the appellant itself does not figure in the invoice - credit of input services where SSI benefit availed - Held that - Unless there is evidence on record that the input services corresponding to the disputed invoices (raised not in the name of the appellant but in the name of the appellant s corporate office or in the name of some other entity) are used by the appellant, they cannot claim CENVAT credit. It is different from a case where the use of inputs/ input services is not in dispute and only the invoice indicates a wrong address but such is not the case. Denial of credit of ₹ 73,571/- on input services - contravention of the provisions of the Notification No.8/2003-CE dated 01.03.2003 - Held that - As far as the exemption under N/N. 8/2003-CE is concerned, Para 2 (iii) clearly lays down the condition that no credit of CENVAT on inputs shall be availed. It places no such restriction on credit of input services , which is the point in dispute. Therefore, the demand raised seeking to deny credit on input services because they availed benefit of N/N. 8/2003-CE dated 01.03.2003 is not sustainable and the demand needs to be set aside. The confirmation of the demand upheld by invoking Rule 11 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 Transitional Provisions which was not invoked in the SCN and thereby traveled beyond the SCN which is not sustainable. Appeal disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Denial of credit based on incorrect address on invoices.
2. Denial of credit for services not pertaining to the appellant.
3. Denial of credit on input services during SSI benefit availed.

Analysis:
1. The appellant contested the denial of credit amounting to &8377; 28,523/- due to invoices issued to the appellant's registered office in Delhi instead of Hyderabad. The appellant argued that incorrect address should not disentitle them to CENVAT Credit, citing relevant Tribunal decisions. The department, however, stated that there was no evidence that the services were used by the appellant, leading to the denial of credit. The tribunal upheld the denial, emphasizing the need for evidence of service usage by the appellant.

2. Another denial of credit was for &8377; 29,766/- in an invoice not in the appellant's name, provided by M/s Strategic International. The appellant argued that they received the services and the absence of their name on the invoice should not prevent credit. The department contended that the services did not pertain to the appellant, leading to the denial of credit. The tribunal agreed with the department, emphasizing the necessity of services being utilized by the appellant for credit eligibility.

3. The denial of &8377; 73,571/- on input services during SSI benefit availed was based on a transitional provision under Rule 11 of the CENVAT Credit Rules. The department argued that the credit was irregular due to availing SSI exemption and CENVAT credit simultaneously. However, the tribunal found that the demand to deny credit on input services due to availing the SSI exemption was unsustainable. The tribunal set aside the denial of credit and penalty, modifying the impugned order accordingly.

In conclusion, the tribunal upheld the denial of credit for invoices not evidencing service usage by the appellant and services not pertaining to them. However, the denial of credit on input services during SSI benefit availed was set aside due to the unsustainable nature of the demand.