9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (3) TMI 197 - AT - Central ExciseCENVAT Credit - denial on the sole ground that their factory address was not reflected in the invoices and only their head office address was shown - period from April, 2010 to March, 2015 - HELD THAT - It is seen that the credit was availed by the appellant after reflecting the same in their RG-23A Part-I and Part-II registers - It is well settled law that substantive benefit cannot be denied on the basis of procedural lapses, if any. The appellant had also their head office and the address stands shown inasmuch as orders might have placed from the head office. The Tribunal in the case of COMMR. OF C. EX. SERVICE TAX, RAIPUR VERSUS DAYALAL MEGHJI AND COMPANY 2015 (12) TMI 488 - CESTAT NEW DELHI has held that it is the appellant s own head office and he would be entitled to take the credit on the basis of invoices issued in the name of the head office. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues: Denial of Cenvat credit due to factory address not reflected in invoices.
Analysis: The judgment pertains to the denial of Cenvat credit amounting to ?99,589/- to the appellant for the period from April 2010 to March 2015. The denial was based on the ground that the factory address was not reflected in the invoices, with only the head office address being shown. However, it was noted that the appellant had duly reflected the credit in their RG-23A Part-I and Part-II registers. The Member (Judicial) emphasized the principle that substantive benefits cannot be denied due to procedural lapses. Citing a precedent from the case of Commr. of C. Ex. & Service Tax, Raipur Vs. Dayalal Meghji And Company, the judgment highlighted that if invoices were issued in the name of the appellant's head office, the appellant would be entitled to take the credit based on those invoices. The Member (Judicial) concluded that as the appellant's head office address was clearly indicated and orders might have been placed from the head office, there was no valid reason to deny the credit. Consequently, the impugned orders were set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief. The judgment underscores the importance of not depriving legitimate benefits to taxpayers based on minor procedural irregularities, especially when the essential requirements for availing such benefits are met.
|
