2012 (7) TMI 107 - AT - Service Tax

Cenvat Credit - denial of credit Held that - If invoice is addressed to the head office of a company cannot be a reason enough to deny cenvat credit if it is otherwise available to assessee. In favor of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Dispute over eligibility for Cenvat credit on specified services for the period September 06 to May 07.

Analysis:
The case involved a dispute regarding the eligibility of Cenvat credit on certain specified services availed by the manufacturer of excisable goods. The adjudicating authority initially disallowed credit on some services, leading to a demand of Rs. 7,77,249 along with interest and a penalty of Rs. 10,000. Upon appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed credit on certain services and remanded the matter for further verification. The Revenue filed an appeal against the Commissioner's decision, while there was no appeal from the assessee.

The Revenue contested that the services in question did not qualify as input services under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, citing procedural irregularities and lack of detailed documentation as per Rule 4A of the Service Tax Rules, 1994. The respondent's counsel argued that certain procedural irregularities, such as invoices being in the name of the head office or previous owner of the factory, were not substantial defects. They highlighted precedents where similar issues were decided in favor of the assessee.

The respondent's counsel referenced various decisions to support their argument, including cases related to rent-a-cab service, outdoor catering services, insurance coverage for employees, repair of vehicles, and CHA services. The Additional Commissioner failed to provide reasons to counter these precedents. Ultimately, the Tribunal found no fault with the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision to allow Cenvat credit on the disputed services and dismissed the Revenue's appeal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision to allow Cenvat credit on the specified services, relying on precedents and finding no valid reasons to overturn the decision.