2018 (11) TMI 1139 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT Credit - denial on the ground of non-registration - Held that - The issue with regard to the non-registration for availing the benefit of CENVAT Credit has been laid to rest by the decision of the Hon ble High Court of Madras in the case of COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX-III, CHENNAI VERSUS CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHENNAI & M/S. SCIOINSPIRE CONSULTING SERVICES (INDIA) PVT LTD, CHENNAI 2017 (4) TMI 943 - MADRAS HIGH COURT , where it was held that Rule 5 of the 2004 Rules does not stipulate registration of premises as a necessary prerequisite for claiming a refund - credit cannot be denied - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
- Alleged contravention of Rule 9(1) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004
- Utilization of CENVAT Credit on service tax paid on input services
- Documents not containing name and address of assessee
- Appeal against Order-in-Original No. 10/2008
- Non-registration as an Input Service Distributor (ISD)
- Denial of CENVAT Credit benefits
- Extended period of limitation invoked

Analysis:
The case involved allegations against the appellant for contravening Rule 9(1) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 and wrongly utilizing CENVAT Credit on service tax paid on input services at their Head Office and Depots. The Revenue issued a Show Cause Notice claiming that the documents used for availing and utilizing the credit did not contain the name and address of the assessee. The assessing officer found discrepancies in the documents and denied the credit based on non-issuance to the assessee. The Ld. Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) upheld this decision, leading to the present appeal.

During the hearing, the appellant's representative argued that the non-registration as an ISD was a procedural lapse and should not result in the denial of substantive benefits. They contended that the Head Office and Depots were integral to the manufacturing process and that the Show Cause Notice was issued beyond the limitation period. The Revenue, represented by the Ld. DR, supported the lower authorities' findings.

The Member (Judicial) analyzed the contentions, reviewed the documents, and considered relevant legal precedents. Referring to the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras and other High Courts, the Member concluded that the issue of non-registration for availing CENVAT Credit benefits had been settled. Citing specific observations from previous cases, the Member allowed the appeal based on the binding ratio decidendi of the jurisdictional High Court and other relevant precedents. Consequently, the appeal was allowed with any consequential benefits, and since it was allowed on merits, other arguments regarding the extended period of limitation were not addressed.

In the final order, the appeal was allowed on the terms discussed, and the operative part of the order was pronounced in open court. The decision provided clarity on the registration requirements for claiming CENVAT Credit benefits and emphasized adherence to legal provisions and precedents in such matters.