2013 (9) TMI 326 - AT - Service Tax

Non-registration of Head Office as Input Service Distributor - Manufacturing unit of the company at Mangalore chose to take CENVAT credit on BOFS provided by Corporation Bank, on the strength of the invoices issued by the bank to the Mumbai office of the company - Transactions involved distribution of CENVAT credit by the Mumbai office of the appellant-company to its Mangalore unit without obtaining ISD- registration and issuing invoices in terms of sub-rule 2 of Rule 4A of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 Held that - Availment of CENVAT credit by the Mangalore unit on the basis of the invoices issued to the Mumbai office by the input service provider is not vitiated by the nature and/or the contents of the invoices used by the manufacturing unit, it would be tantamount to rendering the ISD related provisions otiose - Special provisions governing the registration and conduct of input service distributors must prevail over general provisions - Special provisions prevail over the general provisions and should be given full effect to Decided against the Assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Denial of CENVAT credit on banking & other financial services (BOFS) for the period December 2007 to February 2010 due to invoices not addressed to the manufacturing unit but to the corporate office in Mumbai. Whether the manufacturing unit was entitled to take the credit based on invoices issued to the corporate office without ISD registration.

Analysis:
The case revolved around the denial of CENVAT credit on BOFS to the manufacturing unit for a specific period due to invoices being addressed to the corporate office in Mumbai instead of the unit in Mangalore. The Revenue argued that the manufacturing unit couldn't claim credit without the corporate office being registered as an input service distributor (ISD) to distribute services to the unit. The appellant contended that procedural irregularities in the documents shouldn't deny them the substantive benefit of CENVAT credit, emphasizing that the services were indeed used in manufacturing. The appellant's counsel also mentioned the lack of clarity on the ISD registration status of the company.

The judgment carefully considered the statutory provisions regarding ISD registration for distributing CENVAT credit on input services. It highlighted the requirements for ISD registration and the specific details that must be included in invoices for distributing service tax credit. The judgment emphasized that the legislative provisions governing ISD registration and credit distribution must prevail over general provisions, and failing to adhere to ISD requirements would render the provisions meaningless. The judgment upheld the view that allowing the manufacturing unit to claim credit based on invoices addressed to the corporate office without proper ISD registration would undermine the purpose of the ISD-related provisions.

In conclusion, the judgment upheld the decision of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) to dismiss both appeals, emphasizing the importance of adhering to ISD registration requirements for distributing CENVAT credit. The judgment clarified that special provisions related to ISD registration and credit distribution should take precedence over general provisions, ensuring the proper implementation of the legislative framework governing CENVAT credit on input services.