2019 (7) TMI 331 - AT - Service Tax

Refund of CENVAT Credit - export of services - Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules 2004 - denial on the ground that invoices not bearing service tax registration no. - Rule 9(2) of CENVAT Credit Rules 2004 - HELD THAT - In terms of Rule 9(2) of CENVAT Credit Rules 2004 certain details must be mentioned in the invoices before CENVAT credit can be availed that includes the details of duty or service tax payable, description of the goods or taxable services, assessable value, central excise or service tax registration number of the person issuing the invoice, name and address of the factory or warehouse etc. Service Tax registration number being an essential requirement under the CENVAT Credit Rules 2004 cannot be waived. This Tribunal has no powers of delegated legislation to make or modify the Rules. It s role is confined to interpreting and applying the Rules as they exist - thus, in respect of two invoices the service tax registration No. was actually mentioned and I find it so. Therefore, they are entitled to CENVAT credit of refund under Rule 5 with respect to these two invoices. Invoices not bearing the name of the assessee or appellant - HELD THAT - The representative of the appellant has satisfactorily explained that it was on account of a takeover of the firm from another unit. Accordingly, once the business has been taken over, all assets and liabilities of the previous unit will be taken over by the present appellant including any invoices which may have been wrongly issued in the name of the previous concern - appellant is entitled to refund of invoices not bearing the name of the assessee as service recipient but bearing the name of the previous unit. Invoices issued on unregistered addresses of the assessee - HELD THAT - The appellant is exporting services only from their main office, and not from various offices. It is similar to Beedi factories where tobacco and leaves are issued to various individuals who roll the beedis in their homes and bring them back to the factory where the final product gets manufactured in the factory after baking them. The beedi factory is registered with the central excise department but all the individual homes where beedis are rolled cannot be registered - the appellant is entitled to CENVAT credit as well as refund under Rule 5 in respect of these invoices. The appeal is allowed except in respect of invoices not bearing the service tax registration number of the service providers - appeal is partly allowed and remanded to the original authority for the limited purpose of computation.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Denial of CENVAT credit under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules 2004.
2. Invoices not bearing service tax registration number of service providers.
3. Invoices not bearing the name of the appellant as service recipient.
4. Invoices issued on unregistered addresses of the appellant.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Denial of CENVAT credit under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules 2004:
The appellant, an exporter of services, filed an appeal against the denial of CENVAT credit under Rule 5 for services exported. They collect germ plasm and seeds, conduct tests, and provide scientific consultancy services to their parent company abroad. The appellant claimed a refund of CENVAT credit, which was partly allowed and partly rejected by the Assistant Commissioner. The first Appellate Authority upheld the lower authority's decision. The appellant argued for three grounds on which CENVAT credit was denied.

Issue 2: Invoices not bearing service tax registration number of service providers:
The appellant contended that the invoices not mentioning the service tax registration number of service providers were a condonable lapse. They argued that they should not be denied CENVAT credit based on this ground, especially when they were entitled to it otherwise. The Tribunal found that in two invoices, the service tax registration number was indeed mentioned, entitling the appellant to CENVAT credit for those invoices.

Issue 3: Invoices not bearing the name of the appellant as service recipient:
Regarding invoices not bearing the name of the appellant as the service recipient, the appellant explained that it was due to a takeover from another unit, and all liabilities, including invoices, were transferred. The Tribunal accepted this explanation and granted the appellant a refund for these invoices.

Issue 4: Invoices issued on unregistered addresses of the appellant:
The appellant argued that the invoices were issued in the name of their own offices across the country, which were extensions and not standalone service providers. They contended that the services provided were only at their main office in Telangana, where research and trials were compiled before export. The Tribunal analogized this situation to Beedi factories, where services were exported from the main office based on research conducted in various locations. Thus, the Tribunal allowed the CENVAT credit and refund under Rule 5 for these invoices.

In conclusion, the appeal was allowed, except for the invoices not bearing the service tax registration number of the service providers. The case was partly allowed and remanded for computation by the original authority.