2018 (5) TMI 90 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - input - Cables - Construction Chemicals - Welding Rods - Plastic Crates etc. - Held that - the inputs are allowed credit in various judgements - reliance placed in the case of Singhal Enterprises Pvt. Ltd vs CCE&C, Raipur 2016 (9) TMI 682 - CESTAT NEW DELHI and National Co-op Sugar Mills Ltd vs CCE, Madurai 2016 (7) TMI 1073 - MADRAS HIGH COURT . CENVAT credit - invoices which was in the name of head office and not in the name of Unit - Held that - the issue is covered by the judgement of the Hon ble Gujarat High Court in Dashion Ltd s case 2016 (2) TMI 183 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT , where it was held that there is nothing in the said Rules of 2005 or in the Rules of 2004 which would automatically and without any additional reasons dis-entitle an input service distributor from availing Cenvat credit unless and until such registration was applied and granted - credit allowed. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues involved:
- Whether the appellants are entitled to avail Cenvat Credit of service tax paid on various inputs under Rule 2 (k) (i) of CCR, 2004.
- Whether the appellants can claim credit on invoices issued by the head office not registered as ISD.

Analysis:

1. Admissibility of Cenvat Credit on Inputs/Capital Goods: The appellant sought to avail Cenvat Credit of service tax paid on inputs like Cables, Construction Chemicals, Welding Rods, Plastic Crates, etc. The appellant's advocate cited several judgments, including Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai vs. Thirumalai Chemicals and Banco Products Indias Ltd vs. CCE, Vadodara, to support the admissibility of such credits. The tribunal found that the issue of admissibility of credit on inputs/capital goods was indeed covered by the cited judgments, thus allowing the appellant to avail the Cenvat Credit.

2. Admissibility of Credit on Input Invoices from Head Office: Another issue raised was the admissibility of credit on input invoices issued by the head office, which was not registered as an Input Service Distributor (ISD) at the relevant time. The appellant's advocate referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CCE vs. Dashion Ltd. to support their claim. The tribunal acknowledged that the issue of credit on input invoices from the head office was covered by the Gujarat High Court's judgment, thereby allowing the appellant to claim credit on such invoices.

3. Revenue's Position: The Authorized Representative for the Revenue reiterated the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) but did not provide any new arguments or evidence to counter the appellant's claims.

4. Final Decision: After considering the arguments and legal precedents cited by both parties, the tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal. The judgment was pronounced in the open court, concluding the matter in favor of the appellant based on the admissibility of Cenvat Credit on inputs/capital goods and input invoices from the head office as per relevant legal judgments.