2017 (3) TMI 706 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - denial on the ground that some invoices address to the Head Office instead of Factory address - service tax collected by M/s Himachal Pradesh State Civil Supply Corporation, on the supplies made through the said corporation - service tax paid for services-sales promotion, received by the appellant - Held that - regarding liability of Cenvat credit on invoices issued to Head Office, instead of factory premises, the same is allowable and accordingly, the Cenvat Credit of ₹ 3,00,760 is held allowable to the appellant. So far Cenvat Credit on service tax paid for the services, provided by M/s HP State Civil Supply Corporation, all the information as required in terms of Rule 9 CCR, 2004 read with Rule 4 A of ST Rules are fulfilled and as such, the appellant is entitled to the Cenvat Credit of ₹ 39,500/- in question. So for the availability of Cenvat credit of ₹ 11,87,353/-, for supply of manpower is concerned, the service provider is registered and have raised proper bills which contained, prima facie, particulars required and the appellant have made the payment by cheque through the banking channel, which prima facie satisfies the authenticity of the transaction - the appellant received supply of manpower from the service provider for the work in the nature of packing, forwarding, sales promotion and/or marketing which are all taxable services under the provisions of Service Tax Act and the Rules, accordingly the appellant is entitled to Cenvat credit of ₹ 11,87,353/-. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Allowability of Cenvat Credit for invoices addressed to the Head Office instead of the Factory address.
2. Allowability of Cenvat Credit for service tax collected by M/s Himachal Pradesh State Civil Supply Corporation.
3. Allowability of Cenvat Credit for service tax paid for services-sales promotion received by the appellant.

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The appellant availed Cenvat Credit based on invoices addressed to the Head Office instead of the Factory. The Revenue raised concerns about the eligibility of this credit. However, the Tribunal referred to previous rulings establishing that if services or inputs are received at the factory despite invoices being addressed to the Head Office, Cenvat Credit is permissible. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the Cenvat Credit of ?3,00,760 to the appellant.

Issue 2:
Regarding the service tax collected by M/s Himachal Pradesh State Civil Supply Corporation, the appellant contended that all necessary details were provided as per Rule 9 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and Rule 4 A of Service Tax Rules, 1994. The Corporation acted as a distributor for the appellant's products, and the service charges along with service tax were paid to the registered supplier of service. The Tribunal found the appellant entitled to the Cenvat Credit of ?39,500 in question.

Issue 3:
The third issue involved the Cenvat Credit of ?11,87,353 for services related to sales promotion received by the appellant. The Tribunal reviewed the invoices and the agreement between the parties, concluding that the services provided were for packing, forwarding, sales promotion, and marketing. Despite a dispute over the nomenclature of services, the Tribunal determined that the appellant received taxable services under the Service Tax Act and Rules. Therefore, the appellant was deemed entitled to the Cenvat credit of ?11,87,353.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order, and granted consequential benefits to the appellant.