2018 (6) TMI 257 - AT - Service Tax

CENVAT credit - invoices addressed to Branch Offices which were not registered - denial on the ground that they have availed Service Tax credit of Input Services invoices which were addressed to their branch offices - Held that - The issue involved is covered by judgment of Tribunal in case of Manipal Advertising Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs CCE Mangalore 2009 (10) TMI 434 - CESTAT BANGALORE wherein the credit in identical issue was allowed by holding that If a person is discharging Service tax liability from his registered premises the benefit of Cenvat credit on the Service tax paid by the service providers cannot be denied to the appellant only on the ground that the said invoices are in the name of branch offices - credit allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues: Denial of Cenvat Credit for invoices addressed to branch offices due to lack of centralized registration.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Denial of Cenvat Credit
The appeal was filed against an Order-in-Original denying Cenvat Credit to the Appellant for Service Tax credit of Input Services invoices addressed to their branch offices. The Appellant argued that centralized registration is not mandatory for claiming credit and that the branch offices do not render services independently. The Revenue contended that without centralized registration, credit on branch office invoices is inadmissible. The Tribunal referred to a previous judgment and analyzed the relevant provisions of the Cenvat Credit Rules and Service Tax Rules. The Tribunal noted that the Appellant had centralized billing and accounting systems at a specific office, making their registration compliant with the rules. It was established that the Appellant was discharging Service tax liability from the registered premises, and the invoices in question, though in the name of branch offices, were paid from the registered premises. The Tribunal concluded that the Appellant was eligible for the credit on branch office invoices, setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal with consequential relief.

Conclusion
The Tribunal's judgment clarified that centralized registration is not a prerequisite for claiming Cenvat Credit on invoices addressed to branch offices if the Appellant has centralized billing and accounting systems at a specific office. The decision emphasized that if a person is discharging Service tax liability from their registered premises, the credit on service tax paid by providers cannot be denied solely based on invoices being in the name of branch offices. The judgment provided a detailed analysis of relevant rules and precedent, ultimately ruling in favor of the Appellant and allowing the appeal with consequential relief.

This summary provides a comprehensive analysis of the judgment, addressing the issues involved and the Tribunal's reasoning in detail.