2015 (6) TMI 957 - AT - Service Tax

Disallowance of CENVAT Credit - Documents pertaining to unregistered premises - Held that - An application dated 16/12/2004 made by the appellant requesting for grant of centralized registration from 01/07/2001, is on record and the letter bears the stamp of the receipt by the department. In any case, the fact of this application having been made is mentioned in the order-in-original and is not disputed. However, the order-in-original states that the centralized registration was not applied for in the proper format and that the appellant had not produced any documents to the effect that they had applied for centralized registration. I find from the letter dated 16/12/2004 that the appellant has stated that they may be given permission to have only one registered place in terms of Rule 3(a) of the Service Tax Rules. This request can be considered as an application for centralized registration. In any case, the centralized registration was granted subsequently on 26/03/2013. The department has not disputed that the input services were received at the branch office and further that they were utilised for providing output services. In fact perusal of the accounting records maintained at the Nagpur office shows the receipt of the services at branch office. - no reason to disallow the Cenvat Credit of ₹ 1,24,886/- on the documents pertaining to the branch offices - Decided in favor of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Availment of Cenvat Credit on documents from unregistered premises.
2. Credit denial of specific amount related to office bills not in appellant's name.
3. Imposition of penalty under Rule 15(3) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.

Analysis:
1. The appellant appealed against the Order-in-Appeal disallowing credit and imposing a penalty. The first issue concerned Cenvat Credit of a specific amount on documents from unregistered premises. The appellant had a centralized accounting office in Nagpur with branch offices at other locations. They applied for centralized registration in 2004, which was granted in 2013. The department objected to credit due to lack of centralized registration. However, the appellant demonstrated receipt of services at branch offices and utilization for output services. The tribunal found no basis to disallow the Cenvat Credit on documents from branch offices, ultimately allowing the credit.

2. The second issue pertained to the denial of credit for a specific amount related to office bills not in the appellant's name. The appellant argued that the bills were for services of telephone, addressed to the Director but at the appellant's office premises. The tribunal agreed that there was no reason to deny the service tax credit in this case, leading to the allowance of the credit.

3. Regarding the penalty imposed under Rule 15(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, the tribunal noted that since the service tax credit was allowed, the question of imposing a penalty did not arise. Consequently, the appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant. The tribunal carefully considered submissions from both sides and made a detailed analysis of each issue, ultimately ruling in favor of the appellant based on the evidence and legal provisions presented during the proceedings.