2022 (3) TMI 805 - AT - Service Tax

Refund of the unutilized cenvat credit - rejection of refund on the ground that input services were received prior to obtaining the service tax registration from the Department - refund denied also on the ground that the FIRC is received by their Bangalore office and therefore does not match with the address of the appellant at Chennai. Rejection of refund claim holding that some of the input services have been received prior to obtaining service tax registration from the department - HELD THAT - The Hon ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Scionspire Consulting Services (India) Pvt. Ltd. 2017 (4) TMI 943 - MADRAS HIGH COURT had considered the very same issue and held that the credit cannot be denied for the reason that the services have been availed in an unregistered premises. The Tribunal in the case of M/S. VAMSHADHARA PAPER MILLS LTD. VERSUS THE COMMISSIONER OF G.S.T. CENTRAL EXCISE 2019 (5) TMI 252 - CESTAT CHENNAI and M/S RAJENDER KUMAR ASSOCIATESS VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX, DELHI-II 2020 (11) TMI 621 - CESTAT NEW DELHI held that denial of credit cannot be justified on this ground - the rejection of refund claims on this ground cannot be justified. Refund rejected on the ground that FIRC statement bears the address of their Bangalore Head office and also that invoices bear the address of the Bangalore Head office - HELD THAT - The banker has issued the FIRC copy with the address at Bangalore as per their records. A single bank account cannot be registered with multiple addresses and therefore the requirement for furnishing FIRC has been complied - the credit is eligible - the rejection of the refund claim cannot be justified. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Refund claims under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004; Rejection of refund claims based on input services received prior to obtaining service tax registration; Rejection of refund claims due to discrepancies in address on invoices and FIRC statement.

Analysis:

1. Refund Claims under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004:
The appellant filed refund claims for unutilized cenvat credit under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The claims were rejected on the grounds that some input services were received before obtaining service tax registration. The appellant argued citing legal precedents that denial of credit based on the timing of service availed at an unregistered premises is not justified. The Tribunal and the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court had previously ruled in favor of allowing credit in similar cases. The judge, following these decisions, set aside the rejection of refund claims based on this ground.

2. Discrepancies in Address on Invoices and FIRC Statement:
Another ground for rejecting the refund claims was discrepancies in the address on invoices and the FIRC statement, both showing the Bangalore Head office address instead of the Chennai address where services were availed. The appellant clarified that some vendors mentioned the Bangalore address on invoices, while the FIRC statement reflected the Bangalore address due to the company's single bank account registered there. The Tribunal had previously ruled in favor of the appellant in a similar case, stating that credit eligibility is not affected by address discrepancies. Considering this precedent, the judge found the rejection of the refund claim on this ground unjustified.

In conclusion, the judge set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeals with any consequential relief. The judgment emphasized the legal principle that denial of credit based on the timing of service availed at an unregistered premises or discrepancies in address details is not justified under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The decision was based on established legal precedents and a thorough analysis of the issues raised in the case.