2016 (9) TMI 536 - AT - Service Tax

CENVAT Credit - took on services when Service Tax is paid by the Headquarters of the appellant and CENVAT Credit under CCR is taken at the only manufacturing unit of the appellant - appellant do not have any other manufacturing unit anywhere in India and has its Head Office unregistered as ISD distributor - Held that - it is a well settled legal position that if the services are received and utilised in the appellant s factory then procedural irregularities cannot be made the basis for denying CENVAT Credit. In the present case, the only irregularity committed by the appellant is that the Headquarters of the appellant was not registered as ISD Distributor. This being a procedural irregularity, therefore, cannot be made the basis of denying CENVAT Credit on services received by the appellant. - Decided in favour of appellant

Summary

Issues:
- Admissibility of CENVAT Credit in the factory premises.
- Requirement of Headquarters registration as ISD distributor for CENVAT Credit.

Admissibility of CENVAT Credit in the factory premises:
The appellant, a cement manufacturer with a single factory in Meghalaya, filed appeals against an Order-in-Original confirming a Service Tax demand. The appellant argued that the issue revolved around the admissibility of CENVAT Credit in their factory premises despite Service Tax payments being made by their Headquarters. The appellant cited case laws to support their position that non-registration of the Headquarters as an ISD distributor should not be the basis for rejecting the credit. They claimed that all credit entries were submitted to the Department with refund claims, asserting that there was no intention to take irregular credit. The appellant contended that the demands were time-barred.

Requirement of Headquarters registration as ISD distributor for CENVAT Credit:
The Revenue argued that the appellant's Headquarters should have been registered as an ISD distributor for them to claim CENVAT Credit. The Revenue strongly defended the order passed by the adjudicating authority. However, the Tribunal observed that the appellant, having only one manufacturing unit, should not be denied CENVAT Credit for services utilized in their factory due to procedural irregularities like the lack of ISD registration for the Headquarters. The Tribunal referenced the case law of Bloom Dekor Ltd., emphasizing that if services are received and utilized in the factory, procedural irregularities should not obstruct CENVAT Credit. The Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the appellant, stating that the time bar aspect of the demand was not deliberated upon as the issue was decided in favor of the appellant on merits.

In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, allowing the appeal and providing consequential relief. The Tribunal's decision highlighted the importance of considering the actual utilization of services in the factory premises rather than procedural irregularities related to Headquarters registration for ISD distribution when determining the admissibility of CENVAT Credit.