2019 (11) TMI 7 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT Credit - input service distribution - denial of credit on the ground that Mumbai office at whose address the invoices raised, were not registered as input service distributor - HELD THAT - If the service is received even though invoices are addressed to head office or godown, on that count credit cannot be denied. Further, it is observed that the appellant have availed credit up to 30.06.2016 but the Company of the appellant was amalgamated somewhere in March 2016. Therefore, from March 2016 to June 2016, there were more than one factories being operated under the same Company. In this fact, if it is found that if the common service was used by more than one factory then appellant shall be entitled for the Cenvat credit only on pro-rata basis attributed to Dahej factory - However, this aspect has not been examined by the lower authorities. It is also observed that the Commissioner (Appeals) in its order refrained from giving findings as regard admissibility of input service in terms of Rule 2(l) of CCR. There are no option except to remand the matter to the Adjudicating Authority to pass a fresh order, after considering all the issues - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Issues involved: Denial of Cenvat credit on services including Business Support Service, Intellectual Property Service, Online Information and database access or retrieval services due to invoices not being addressed to a registered input service distributor, and the service for godown rent not being directly related to the factory.

Analysis:
1. Denial of Cenvat credit on services: The appellant availed Cenvat credit for various services, but both lower authorities denied the credit citing reasons such as invoices not being issued to a registered input service distributor and the service for godown rent not being directly related to the factory. The appellant argued that denial based on the address of the Mumbai office not being registered as an input service distributor was incorrect, citing a precedent from the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court. The appellant contended that the godown service was directly related to the factory, supporting their claim with relevant judgments. The appellant also clarified the factory operations during the relevant period, emphasizing that credit should be allowed even if distribution was not made on a pro-rata basis. The tribunal acknowledged the appellant's arguments and referred to previous judgments to support the admissibility of credit in similar cases.

2. Address on Invoices and Factory Operations: The issue of invoices being addressed to the Mumbai/Taleja office raised concerns about the distribution of credit and the number of factories operated by the appellant. Despite the appellant's claim of having only one factory at Dahej, the tribunal noted the amalgamation with another company, resulting in multiple factories operating during a specific period. The tribunal emphasized that if services were received for the factory, credit should be allowed irrespective of the address on the invoices. The tribunal highlighted the need for a pro-rata basis for credit allocation when common services were used by multiple factories under the same company. The lower authorities' failure to examine this aspect led to the decision of remanding the case for a fresh order by the Adjudicating Authority to consider all relevant issues and provide a comprehensive ruling based on the observations made.

3. Remand of the Case: The tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal by remanding the case to the Adjudicating Authority for a fresh decision. The tribunal emphasized the importance of considering all issues, including the admissibility of input services under Rule 2(l) of CCR, and ensuring a thorough examination of the credit allocation based on factory operations and common services utilized. The decision to remand the case was made to address the lack of detailed examination by the lower authorities and to provide a comprehensive ruling based on the legal precedents and arguments presented during the proceedings.

In conclusion, the judgment highlighted the importance of proper credit allocation based on factory operations, the relevance of legal precedents in determining credit admissibility, and the necessity for a comprehensive examination of all issues before reaching a final decision on Cenvat credit eligibility for the appellant.

← Previous Next →