2017 (3) TMI 873 - AT - Service Tax

CENVAT credit - denial on the ground that invoices bearing the addresses of the branches which are not registered - Held that - there is no dispute as to the fact that the branch offices of the respondent were receiving the input services and were utilized for providing output services which is of multi transport system. It is also undisputed that the invoices of service provider indicated all the particulars to enable the availment CENVAT credit and that the name and addresses of the respondent branch offices were indicated on the invoices - the adjudicating authority has not erred in extending the benefit of CENVAT credit of the service tax paid on the input service on the invoices which are in the name of the branches of the respondent, as even though the said services have been received at branches but payments were made from Mumbai office Centralised accounting system - credit allowed - appeal rejected - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Admissibility of CENVAT credit on invoices with unregistered branch addresses and time-barred demand.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Admissibility of CENVAT credit
The case involves a dispute over the admissibility of CENVAT credit during 2006-07 to 2010-11 on invoices bearing unregistered branch addresses. The appellant argued that the respondent wrongly availed CENVAT credit on such invoices. The respondent, a Multi Modal Transport Operator, claimed centralized billing and accounting in Mumbai, where all payments were made, justifying the CENVAT credit. The appellant contended that the respondent failed to account for all input services and lacked invoices at the registered office. However, the respondent argued that they received services at branch offices but accounted for them centrally. The Tribunal examined sample invoices and confirmed that the services were utilized for output services, with service tax paid by the providers. The Tribunal upheld the adjudicating authority's decision to drop the proceedings, citing the flawless reasoning and previous Tribunal decisions supporting the respondent's position.

Issue 2: Time-barred demand
The appellant also raised concerns about the demand being time-barred. However, the Tribunal found no merit in this argument, emphasizing the proper utilization of services for output services and the centralized accounting system in place. The Tribunal referenced relevant case laws supporting the respondent's entitlement to CENVAT credit on services received at branch offices but paid for centrally. Ultimately, the Tribunal rejected the appeal and upheld the impugned order, concluding that it was correct and legally sound, requiring no interference.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's detailed analysis of the issues surrounding the admissibility of CENVAT credit and the time-barred demand resulted in the rejection of the appeal and the affirmation of the impugned order. The judgment highlighted the importance of centralized accounting systems and proper utilization of services in justifying the availing of CENVAT credit, supported by relevant case law precedents.