2023 (8) TMI 614 - AT - Service Tax

CENVAT Credit - input services received by the appellant on the premises not indicated in their ST-2 certificate (registration certificate) - HELD THAT - The issue is no longer res integra and the Tribunal has in series of cases held that so far as the receipt of input services by the output service provider is not in dispute. The credit cannot be denied merely for the reason that these services were received at the premises other than the registered premises or the invoices against which the credit has been availed while showing the name of service recipient some other address which is not mentioned in the ST-2 certificate. Reliance placed in the case of M/S BRIDAL JEWELLERY MFG CO. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, C.E. S.T., NOIDA 2017 (11) TMI 940 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD where it was held that The substantial benefit cannot be denied for mere technical or venial breach of the procedural law. In the case of M/S. ALLSPHERES ENTERTAINMENT PVT. LTD. VERSUS CCE, MEERUT 2015 (8) TMI 953 - CESTAT NEW DELHI where it was held that In the absence of any such dispute regarding availment of services and their utilization for payment of service tax or proper accounting of the same, the denial of Cenvat Credit of service tax paid by Nainital office of the appellant on the sole ground that the invoices issued are in the name of the appellants' unregistered office at Delhi is unjustified. Reliance placed in the case of MPORTAL INDIA WIRELESS SOLUTIONS (P.) LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX 2011 (9) TMI 450 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT where it was held that CENVAT Credit cannot be denied for the reason that the appellant has produced a photocopy of the invoice. Such lapses have been held to be procedural lapse for which the credit availed will not become inadmissible. The credit in the present case could not have been denied for the reason stated in the impugned order - there are no merits in the same and the same is set aside - appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are:
1. Whether the demand under Rule 14 of The Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 is tenable.
2. Whether the Cenvat credit of service tax paid on input services received by the appellant on premises not indicated in their ST-2 certificate can be allowed.

Issue 1:
The first issue revolved around the demand under Rule 14 of The Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The Lower Authority observed that the demand relates to cenvat credit availed on invoices not consigned to the appellant's address, violating Rule 4A of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 along with Rule 9(2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the disallowance of the cenvat credit availed by the appellant on invoices not addressed to the registered premises, citing various legal precedents and emphasizing the importance of adherence to statutory requirements for availing CENVAT credit.

Issue 2:
The second issue focused on whether the Cenvat credit of service tax paid on input services received by the appellant on premises not indicated in their ST-2 certificate could be allowed. The Tribunal referred to previous decisions where it was held that the credit cannot be denied solely based on the services being received at premises other than the registered premises or the invoices showing a different address. The Tribunal highlighted that as long as the input services were received, utilized, and properly accounted for, denial of Cenvat Credit based on procedural lapses or curable defects in the invoices was not justified. Relying on established legal principles, the Tribunal set aside the denial of Cenvat Credit in the present case, ultimately allowing the appeal.