Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2020 (1) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2020 (1) TMI 367 - AT - Central Excise


Issues:
1. Denial of cenvat credit for input service - labour service due to service provider's registration under a different category.
2. Discrepancies in the address mentioned on the service provider's invoices affecting credit denial.

Analysis:
Issue 1: The appellant faced denial of cenvat credit for labour service due to the service provider being registered under private security agency service. The Adjudicating Authority dropped the charge of non-use in or in relation to manufacturing but denied credit based on the service provider's registration. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision, leading to the present appeal.

The appellant argued that the labour service was indeed used in manufacturing the final product, emphasizing that the service recipient has no control over the service provider's classification errors. Citing the Tribunal Judgment in Newlight Hotels & Resorts Ltd., it was contended that the appellant should not suffer due to the service provider's misclassification. The Tribunal found that since the service mentioned in the invoice was received and used in manufacturing, credit could not be denied based on the service provider's registration.

Issue 2: The Revenue also highlighted discrepancies in the address on the service provider's invoices as a reason for credit denial. However, the Tribunal noted that the Show Cause Notice did not include this discrepancy as a charge, preventing the adjudicating authority from introducing new issues without prior notice to the appellant. Moreover, it was undisputed that the service was received and utilized in manufacturing. Even if there were errors in the address details, as long as the service was received, credit denial was unwarranted.

In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal and emphasizing that credit cannot be denied based on the service provider's registration or minor discrepancies in invoice details when the service was actually received and utilized in manufacturing.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates