2023 (5) TMI 973 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT Credit - input services - denial of credit on the ground that some of the invoices raised by the service provider were showing the address of Appellant s registered office at Kolkata - suppression of facts or not - Extended period of Limitation - HELD THAT - Admittedly there is no dispute that the services were received by the Appellant in their factory premises as is established from the copies of the sample Invoices provided by the Appellant. The Tribunals have been consistently holding that when the service is received and utilized in the factory and the invoices are raised in the address of the Head office, the Cenvat Credit cannot be denied. In the case of COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS C. EX., VAPI VERSUS DNH SPINNERS 2009 (7) TMI 130 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD , the Tribunal has held The Revenue in their grounds has raised only technical grounds that the documents were not in the name of the assessee s factory situated at Silvassa but the same were issued in the name of the head office of the assessee situated at Mumbai. However, I find that there is otherwise no dispute about the input services received by the assessee. The substantive benefit cannot be denied on the procedural grounds. I do not find any infirmity in the view adopted by Commissioner (Appeals) and accordingly reject the appeal filed by the Revenue. In the case of PAREKH PLAST (INDIA) PVT. LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, VAPI 2011 (6) TMI 595 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD , the Tribunal has held the denial on the sole ground of invoices being in the name of head office, is not justified. Since the issue is squarely covered by the cited case laws, appeal is allowed.

Summary

Issues involved:
The issue involves the denial of Cenvat Credit to a manufacturer of Sponge Iron due to invoices showing the address of the appellant's head office instead of the factory premises where the services were utilized.

Summary:
The Appellant, a manufacturer of Sponge Iron, located at Jamuria Industrial Area, West Bengal, took Cenvat Credit for input services used in their factory. The Department issued a Show Cause Notice alleging that some invoices showed the appellant's head office address in Kolkata, leading to a demand of Rs.3,22,568/- along with interest and penalty. The Appellant contended that services were provided at the factory in Jamuria, with invoices raised at the head office for payment coordination. The Appellant provided documentary evidence, but the lower Authorities did not consider it. The Appellant relied on case laws supporting credit based on proper invoices and challenged the invocation of the extended period for demand confirmation.

The Learned AR supported the lower Authorities' findings. The Tribunal noted that services were received and utilized in the factory, as evidenced by sample invoices. Referring to case laws, the Tribunal emphasized that when services are utilized in the factory, Cenvat Credit cannot be denied based on the address on the invoices. Citing precedents, the Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeal, emphasizing that substantive benefit cannot be denied on procedural grounds. The Tribunal allowed the appeal based on the cited case laws, granting consequential relief.

Separate Judgment by Judge:
No separate judgment was delivered by the Judge in this case.