2014 (3) TMI 630 - AT - Central Excise

Availment of CENVAT Credit - Cenvat credit on the invoices issued by appellant s head office before getting the head office registered under Input Service Distributor - Held that - head office of the appellant has obtained the ISD registration on 06.12.2005 while the credit was availed by the appellant on the invoices issued dated 20.09.2005 - there is no dispute regarding the receipt of input services at the head office. It is also undisputed that the said services can be distributed by the head office to the various factories and the appellant s factory being one of them. It is also undisputed that the appellant is eligible to avail the Cenvat credit of such services which has been received by the head office and distributed to them - Following decision in the case of Jindal Photo Limited 2009 (1) TMI 187 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Availing Cenvat credit on invoices issued before obtaining Input Service Distributor (ISD) registration.

Analysis:
1. The appeal challenged an order demanding cenvat credit of Rs. 58,008/- under Rule 14 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, along with interest and penalty, based on invoices issued before ISD registration.

2. The appellant contended that the issue was covered by a previous tribunal decision and argued that they were eligible to avail the credit as the services were received and distributed by the head office to various factories, including the appellant's factory.

3. The Revenue argued that ISD registration is mandatory for availing Cenvat credit, citing a tribunal decision, and maintained that invoices issued before registration were ineligible for credit.

4. The Member (Judicial) noted that the dispute centered on availing credit on pre-registration invoices, highlighting that the head office obtained ISD registration after the credit was availed.

5. It was established that the appellant received the input services and was entitled to the credit, supported by previous tribunal judgments like Jindal Photo Limited and Samita Conductors Limited, which directly covered the issue.

6. The Member distinguished an interim order relied upon by the Revenue from final orders cited by the appellant, emphasizing that the final orders supported the appellant's position.

7. Relying on the precedent set by the tribunal in Jindal Photo Limited, the Member concluded that the impugned order demanding reversal of credit was incorrect, setting it aside and allowing the appeal.