9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (6) TMI 1104 - AT - Central ExciseDenial of CENVAT Credit and order for recovery of same - denial of credit on the ground that credit taken was pertaining to the period prior to registration - denial also on the ground that the invoices issued by the ISD did not contain the particulars like name, address and registration number of the person providing the services - alleged also that CENVAT Credit distributed by the ISD was without excluding the credit attributable to the turnover of trading activities which is an exempted service - HELD THAT - It is a little strange on the part of Revenue that while the appellant-ISD had distributed credit of Rs.44,78,255/- to its manufacturing unit at Pune and Rs.94,84,508/- to the appellant at Puducherry unit, the Revenue has accepted the distribution of above credit to its Pune unit. The Department has not accepted the distribution of credit by ISD in respect of the appellant s Puducherry unit. A perusal of both the Show Cause Notice and the impugned Order-in-Original do not reveal anything as to why the appellant s unit was cherry picked up just to deny credit. Certificate of registration dated 24.01.2011 - HELD THAT - It is clear from the same that the addresses of business premises of the ISD and that of two manufacturing units to which credit on input services was distributed or intended to be distributed is clearly reflected. The Revenue, on the other hand, is not disputing the validity of this certificate of registration. Admittedly, transactions in the present case relate to the period prior to 01.09.2014 and therefore, the restriction which is applicable prospectively, cannot be applied retrospectively. In the case of Hon ble High Court THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, O/O THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CUSTOMS SERVICE TAX VERSUS M/S. PRICOL LTD. 2021 (2) TMI 495 - MADRAS HIGH COURT has categorically held, following the judgement of the Hon ble Gujarat High Court in the case of COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE VERSUS DASHION LTD 2016 (2) TMI 183 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT , that there is nothing in the said Rules of 2005 or Rules of 2004 which would automatically and without any additional reasons, disentitle an input service distributor from availing credit unless and until such registration was applied and granted - Interestingly, the ratio of the decision was followed by Hon ble Karnataka High Court in the case of THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE SERVICE TAX AND CUSTOMS BANGALURU-II, VERSUS M/S. HINDUJA GLOBAL SOLUTIONS LTD., 2022 (4) TMI 71 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT and later by various judicial fora. Thus, the finding of the learned authority for denying credit on the ground that the credit taken was pertaining to the period prior to registration, cannot be approved. Credit denial also on the ground that invoices do not have the details of person who provided the service - HELD THAT - The invoices placed on record clearly reflect the service provider challans and corresponding invoices issued by ISD for distribution of credit. Hence, merely because the above invoices do not have the details of person who provided the service, the same is not a valid ground to deny the benefit of credit. The supporting documents placed on record by the Revenue with regard to the allegations that are made in the Show Cause Notice as to the trading units, but it is also unfortunate that the adjudicating authority has also made a very vague observation in this regard. But it is also equally true that what is referred to in Show Cause Notice is trading unit and not trading activities. Hence, in the absence of any specific trading activity by the appellant, the finding of the authority that the IPR services and management, consultancy services are important component of trading activities, appears to be vague and baseless - consequent action of denying credit is clearly therefore illogical and unsustainable in the eye of law. The denial of credit is clearly unwarranted - Appeal allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of CENVAT Credit availed before ISD registration. 2. Adequacy of invoices issued by ISD. 3. Distribution of credit without excluding trading activities. 4. Nexus of royalty and management consultancy services with manufacturing activities. Summary: 1. Validity of CENVAT Credit availed before ISD registration: The appellant availed CENVAT Credit on services received between April 2009 and December 2011, distributed to manufacturing units at Pimpri, Pune, and Puducherry. The Revenue contested that the appellant availed input service credit of Rs.88,27,490/- based on invoices issued by the Head Office at Bengaluru as ISD, which obtained registration only in May 2011. The Tribunal found it strange that the Revenue accepted credit distribution to the Pune unit but not to the Puducherry unit. The Tribunal referred to the decision in *Commissioner of Central Excise, Coimbatore v. Pricol Ltd.* and held that there was no time-limit for availing credit until the introduction of a proviso to Rule 4(1) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, effective from 01.09.2014. Thus, the denial of credit on the ground that it was availed before registration was not approved. 2. Adequacy of invoices issued by ISD: The Revenue argued that the invoices issued by ISD lacked necessary details like the name, address, and registration number of the service provider. The Tribunal, after examining the invoices, found that they did reflect the service provider challans and corresponding invoices issued by ISD for distribution of credit. Hence, the Tribunal held that the absence of certain details on the invoices was not a valid ground to deny the benefit of credit. 3. Distribution of credit without excluding trading activities: The Show Cause Notice alleged that the credit was distributed without excluding the credit attributable to trading activities, which are exempted services. The appellant contended that there were no trading units and that both manufacturing units were engaged in the manufacture of dutiable goods. The Tribunal found no supporting documents from the Revenue regarding the allegations of trading units and noted that the adjudicating authority's observations were vague. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the denial of credit based on alleged trading activities was illogical and unsustainable. 4. Nexus of royalty and management consultancy services with manufacturing activities: The Revenue argued that royalty services and management consultancy services did not qualify as input services as they had no nexus with manufacturing activities. The appellant maintained that these services were related to logistics, inventory management, financial management, production processes, and quality control in their factory. The Tribunal agreed with the appellant, noting that the services were covered under Rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, and thus, the denial of credit on this ground was also not approved. Conclusion: The Tribunal found the denial of credit unwarranted and set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal with consequential benefits as per law.
|
