2023 (3) TMI 127 - AT - Service Tax

CENVAT Credit - invoices not raised as per the address mentioned in the registration certificate of the Appellant - HELD THAT - It can be said that judicial precedent relied upon by the Appellant, including the one referred by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the case of MPORTAL INDIA WIRELESS SOLUTIONS (P.) LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX 2011 (9) TMI 450 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT are in favour of the Appellant. Since it has been distinctly analysed in all those judgements that there was no such requirement of having premises registered so as to make credits eligible for the purpose of its availment against inputs taken for providing output services. In respect to the non-adherence of the judicial precedent set on the issue, as found in the relied upon decisions noted above, the ground cited by the Commissioner (Appeals) is that in all such cases the premises were sought to be registered subsequently. This is also untrue for the reason that in the leading case of mPortal India Wireless Solutions P. Ltd. itself, referred by the Commissioner (Appeals), it was held that registration with the department is not a pre-requisite for claiming the credit as no provision is in existence in the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 to impose such restriction. Moreover, going by the judgments relied upon, it is not noticeable that only because premises were subsequently registered credit for the previous period was allowed since in some of the cases credits were also allowed in respect of other unregistered premises. Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Appeal against denial of CENVAT Credit by Adjudicating Authority and Commissioner of CGST & CX (Appeals-I), Mumbai.

Analysis:
1. The appeal challenged the order denying CENVAT Credit of Rs.9,32,024/- due to invoices not addressed to the Appellant's registered premises. The Appellant, a provider of sound recording services, argued that invoices were raised in the name of the firm without addresses due to individual performers. The Counsel cited case laws supporting the claim that registration of service receiver premises is not a precondition for CENVAT Credit. The Appellant provided evidence of output services being rendered from hired premises, disputing the denial of credits based on address variance.

2. The Respondent's Authorised Representative supported the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order, highlighting expired lease agreements and registration certificate issued in the partner's name. However, the Tribunal found errors in the Representative's arguments. The disputed credits were within the agreement period, and the Appellant's registration certificate was produced as additional evidence. The core issue was whether invoices not matching the registered address were eligible for CENVAT Credit.

3. The Commissioner (Appeals) placed the burden of proof on the Appellant to show entitlement to CENVAT Credit. While acknowledging precedents that premises registration is not mandatory, the Commissioner emphasized the lack of linkage between the premises and output services. However, the Tribunal noted that judicial precedents favored the Appellant, emphasizing that registration was not a prerequisite for credit eligibility. The Tribunal rejected the Commissioner's argument that subsequent registration was necessary, citing the absence of such a provision in the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.

4. Ultimately, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the Commissioner of CGST & CX (Appeals-I), Mumbai's order. The Tribunal's decision was based on the Appellant's arguments, supported by legal precedents, that registration of service receiver premises was not a mandatory condition for availing CENVAT Credit against inputs used for providing output services.

This detailed analysis covers the legal judgment comprehensively, addressing the issues involved and the arguments presented by both parties, leading to the final decision of the Tribunal.