2019 (5) TMI 758 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT Credit - ISD - credit availed on the basis of the invoice issued at its unregistered address at Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh from where no output service was provided - it was also alleged that address was not registered as Input Service Distributor. HELD THAT - The service have actually been provided to the Appellant but inadvertently the address of Hyderabad Unit was mentioned on the invoices. Revenue has not disputed that the service in question is an input service. It is also not the case of Revenue that no service tax has been paid. Whether the mentioning of registered premises on the invoice is mandatory in order to claim cenvat credit? - HELD THAT - This issue is no more res integra. In the matter of mPortal India Wireless Solutions (P) Ltd. Vs Commissioner 2011 (9) TMI 450 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT , a similar question arises for consideration of the Hon ble High Court of Karnataka and the Hon ble High Court while answering the question in favour of assessee held that In the absence of a statutory provision which prescribes that registration is mandatory and that if such a registration is not made the assessee is not entitled to the benefit of refund, the three authorities committed a serious error in rejecting the claim for refund on the ground which is not existence in law. Since it is merely procedural lapse due to which substantive benefit of Cenvat Credit cannot be denied to the Appellant therefore there is no need to go into this aspect - As the Appellant has rightly availed the cenvat credit therefore there is no question of imposition of penalty or interest and since I am allowing the appeal on this issue itself therefore I am not going into other aspects of the matter viz. Issue of extended period etc. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues involved:
Determining whether the Appellant rightly availed Cenvat Credit on input services based on an invoice issued at an unregistered address, and whether the mentioning of registered premises on the invoice is mandatory.

Analysis:
1. Availment of Cenvat Credit: The Appellant filed an appeal challenging the order passed by the Commissioner regarding the availing of Cenvat Credit amounting to ?3,96,327 on input services. The Appellant argued that the service was rendered directly to its Bhiwandi unit, not the Hyderabad unit as mentioned in the invoice. The service provider later corrected the address on the invoice, confirming that services were provided to the Bhiwandi unit. The Tribunal found that the Appellant was the actual recipient of the service, and the mentioning of the wrong address on the invoice was a procedural error. The Tribunal emphasized that the Cenvat Credit on input services was genuine, and since the service was provided to the Appellant, the credit could not be denied based on the address mentioned on the invoice.

2. Mandatory Mention of Registered Premises: The Tribunal referred to a previous decision where the High Court held that registration with the department is not a mandatory requirement for claiming Cenvat Credit. The Tribunal noted that there was no statutory provision mandating the mentioning of registered premises on the invoice for availing Cenvat Credit. It was established that the failure to mention the registered premises was a procedural lapse, and the substantive benefit of Cenvat Credit should not be denied to the Appellant based on this. The Tribunal highlighted that any beneficial provision should be interpreted liberally, and since the Appellant rightfully availed the Cenvat Credit, penalties or interest could not be imposed.

In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the order passed by the Commissioner and allowed the appeal filed by the Appellant, providing consequential relief. The judgment emphasized that the Appellant was entitled to avail the Cenvat Credit on input services despite the procedural lapse in mentioning the correct address on the invoice. The decision reaffirmed the principle of interpreting beneficial provisions liberally and highlighted that substantive benefits should not be denied due to procedural errors.